I DO NOT WANT my cake and I DO NOT WANT to eat it too...
Options
Replies
-
in for answers.You've made it cleat you think sugar is evil.
Trying to pretend you really don't like it is rationalization.
No. Sugar (sucrose) is poisonous to some people--evil, no. It is a quick source of energy for those who can well-tolerate it (but that wouldn't be me or the millions of obese individuals in the world). But, even then, it could be considered an "anti-nutrient" as it takes more nutrients from those who eat it, than is supplied by it. It is not a food--it is a synthetic fraction of a food. It has addictive qualities and it does great harm to those who get "addicted" to it. Here is a link to a blog post written by a woman who lost three hundred pounds after she dealt with her sugar addiction. Enjoy. http://www.300poundsdown.com/2013/06/sugar-addiction-detox-and-gaining-control-over-food.html
As for rationalization, I would say that those who get "depressed" at the thought of doing without it are merely rationalizing their addiction.
That's an ignorant post you linked to, so she's addicted to sugar and apparently can't do moderation, yet offers a shake "detox" with shakes containing some sugar in it? Thought she couldn't do sugar in moderation? Also I see no mention of going zero carb to help with her sugar addiction, what is a saccharide?I am not a scientist so I cannot fully explain to you what sugar does to your body physiologically. But I can direct you to some sources that might further explain it. Suffice it to say that sugar addiction is real. Some forms of sugar have even been altered in a lab to make it more addictive so that you find it even harder to resist.
Which would those be, lol
Also, I hope they really are addicted to sugar. I hope everyone is. If your brain stopped getting that stuff, it'd die.
If you think that it was anyone but that persons fault that they were 300 lbs heavier and it's because something in the world made her like a specific food, and if it never existed she'd be skinny, should we just get rid of foods people are addicted to? luls. So, everyone else should be addicted to it to right? Because science made it addictive? Then why don't a lot of people I know have a sweet tooth? Lots of people are 'addicted' to certain foods and just haven't eaten enough of it to make them 300lbs heavier. It's not because they were wearing a tinfoil hat to stop it from being mutated into evilness. If they had an addiction they learned to control it and didn't blame it on the rest of the world, a specific food, or science for food changing. I had a sweet tooth, and I lost a bunch of weight, and still have a sweet tooth and have to much sugar regularly. And do you know whose fault it was for getting as big as I did? My own. I was upset, and just couldn't deal with my own problems at the time, ignored some things and got a little blind, and that's my own fault.
By the sounds of it sugar wasn't poisonous really...since by that logic anything is. Copious amounts of a specific thing would yep, make you sick.
"The dose makes the poison." I never once suggested that she did not bear the ultimate responsibility for her obesity. But there are ways to help the morbidly obese and there are ways to further their misery. The way to help them is to bring them to the realization that this woman apparently came to--that sugar (and starch too) are poisonous to the morbidly obese. They are typically leptin-resistant and the only way to fix that is to bring high blood sugar levels down long enough for the body to respond appropriately to the enormous number of excess calories (stored as body fat) that they carry with them every day. Sugar and starch boost blood sugar higher and faster than either fat or protein. Thus, some measure of restriction or elimination of sugar and starch are indicated for the morbidly obese. Why make it more difficult for them by insisting that they continue to have poison "in moderation"?0 -
No, it does not at all. If you get sick/diseased or have addiction problems, that does not make you a weight loss expert. I know many who lost lots who are completely clueless on how it works. And then there are many that haven't lost much and that's exactly why they didn't have a lot to lose in the first place. Plus, she didn't lose 300lbs from cutting out sugar, she lost 300lbs from cutting calories.You've made it cleat you think sugar is evil.
Trying to pretend you really don't like it is rationalization.
No. Sugar (sucrose) is poisonous to some people--evil, no. It is a quick source of energy for those who can well-tolerate it (but that wouldn't be me or the millions of obese individuals in the world). But, even then, it could be considered an "anti-nutrient" as it takes more nutrients from those who eat it, than is supplied by it. It is not a food--it is a synthetic fraction of a food. It has addictive qualities and it does great harm to those who get "addicted" to it. Here is a link to a blog post written by a woman who lost three hundred pounds after she dealt with her sugar addiction. Enjoy. http://www.300poundsdown.com/2013/06/sugar-addiction-detox-and-gaining-control-over-food.html
As for rationalization, I would say that those who get "depressed" at the thought of doing without it are merely rationalizing their addiction.
That's an ignorant post you linked to, so she's addicted to sugar and apparently can't do moderation, yet offers a shake "detox" with shakes containing some sugar in it? Thought she couldn't do sugar in moderation? Also I see no mention of going zero carb to help with her sugar addiction, what is a saccharide?I am not a scientist so I cannot fully explain to you what sugar does to your body physiologically. But I can direct you to some sources that might further explain it. Suffice it to say that sugar addiction is real. Some forms of sugar have even been altered in a lab to make it more addictive so that you find it even harder to resist.
Which would those be, lol
She SAID she is not a scientist--but she is someone who lost 300 pounds by cutting sugar out of her life. So, I guess that qualifies her as something of an expert in the weight-loss field. Have a nice day. :smooched:0 -
Cake sounds good right now, I will eat the whole cake if you send it to me...0
-
You seem to be quoting things that are not mine as if it were...."The dose make the poison". I didn't say it so not sure why that was brought up. And..
in for answers.You've made it cleat you think sugar is evil.
Trying to pretend you really don't like it is rationalization.
No. Sugar (sucrose) is poisonous to some people--evil, no. It is a quick source of energy for those who can well-tolerate it (but that wouldn't be me or the millions of obese individuals in the world). But, even then, it could be considered an "anti-nutrient" as it takes more nutrients from those who eat it, than is supplied by it. It is not a food--it is a synthetic fraction of a food. It has addictive qualities and it does great harm to those who get "addicted" to it. Here is a link to a blog post written by a woman who lost three hundred pounds after she dealt with her sugar addiction. Enjoy. http://www.300poundsdown.com/2013/06/sugar-addiction-detox-and-gaining-control-over-food.html
As for rationalization, I would say that those who get "depressed" at the thought of doing without it are merely rationalizing their addiction.
That's an ignorant post you linked to, so she's addicted to sugar and apparently can't do moderation, yet offers a shake "detox" with shakes containing some sugar in it? Thought she couldn't do sugar in moderation? Also I see no mention of going zero carb to help with her sugar addiction, what is a saccharide?I am not a scientist so I cannot fully explain to you what sugar does to your body physiologically. But I can direct you to some sources that might further explain it. Suffice it to say that sugar addiction is real. Some forms of sugar have even been altered in a lab to make it more addictive so that you find it even harder to resist.
Which would those be, lol
Also, I hope they really are addicted to sugar. I hope everyone is. If your brain stopped getting that stuff, it'd die.
If you think that it was anyone but that persons fault that they were 300 lbs heavier and it's because something in the world made her like a specific food, and if it never existed she'd be skinny, should we just get rid of foods people are addicted to? luls. So, everyone else should be addicted to it to right? Because science made it addictive? Then why don't a lot of people I know have a sweet tooth? Lots of people are 'addicted' to certain foods and just haven't eaten enough of it to make them 300lbs heavier. It's not because they were wearing a tinfoil hat to stop it from being mutated into evilness. If they had an addiction they learned to control it and didn't blame it on the rest of the world, a specific food, or science for food changing. I had a sweet tooth, and I lost a bunch of weight, and still have a sweet tooth and have to much sugar regularly. And do you know whose fault it was for getting as big as I did? My own. I was upset, and just couldn't deal with my own problems at the time, ignored some things and got a little blind, and that's my own fault.
By the sounds of it sugar wasn't poisonous really...since by that logic anything is. Copious amounts of a specific thing would yep, make you sick.
"The dose makes the poison." I never once suggested that she did not bear the ultimate responsibility for her obesity. But there are ways to help the morbidly obese and there are ways to further their misery. The way to help them is to bring them to the realization that this woman apparently came to--that sugar (and starch too) are poisonous to the morbidly obese. They are typically leptin-resistant and the only way to fix that is to bring high blood sugar levels down long enough for the body to respond appropriately to the enormous number of excess calories (stored as body fat) that they carry with them every day. Sugar and starch boost blood sugar higher and faster than either fat or protein. Thus, some measure of restriction or elimination of sugar and starch are indicated for the morbidly obese. Why make it more difficult for them by insisting that they continue to have poison "in moderation"?
No, you are wrong, sugar and starch are not poisonous to the morbidly obese. Trying to cut those things out completely can make one rather sick. Copious amounts of anything in surplus calories are not good for the morbidly obese. The overweight professor on the twinkie diet brought his blood sugars from 94 to 75. It's not sugar that's the problem.
I'm not insisting that people eat poison, they're not poison. You need sugar or you die. I'm also not saying to go around eating cake all day. If you want to live without a twinkie, you can. I'm saying don't go around telling people delusions like essential things the body needs to live is poison. Particularly when sugar is needed for proper brain function.
Also I'd like to add that coddling and protecting everyone without letting them be responsible for their own actions also furthers misery. We should help those people live normal lives, thus we can't put everyone with a problem in a bubble. There's also many people who are afraid of heights and addicted to eating mattresses. That doesn't mean we should stop having these things in life. I'm all for helping a person with their problems, but not with solving it by removing things that can be a regular things in a normal persons life. I don't even think it's good to remove things I'm afraid of either, I like dealing with my problems, not removing them necessarily.0 -
You seem to be quoting things that are not mine as if it were...."The dose make the poison". I didn't say it so not sure why that was brought up. And..
in for answers.You've made it cleat you think sugar is evil.
Trying to pretend you really don't like it is rationalization.
No. Sugar (sucrose) is poisonous to some people--evil, no. It is a quick source of energy for those who can well-tolerate it (but that wouldn't be me or the millions of obese individuals in the world). But, even then, it could be considered an "anti-nutrient" as it takes more nutrients from those who eat it, than is supplied by it. It is not a food--it is a synthetic fraction of a food. It has addictive qualities and it does great harm to those who get "addicted" to it. Here is a link to a blog post written by a woman who lost three hundred pounds after she dealt with her sugar addiction. Enjoy. http://www.300poundsdown.com/2013/06/sugar-addiction-detox-and-gaining-control-over-food.html
As for rationalization, I would say that those who get "depressed" at the thought of doing without it are merely rationalizing their addiction.
That's an ignorant post you linked to, so she's addicted to sugar and apparently can't do moderation, yet offers a shake "detox" with shakes containing some sugar in it? Thought she couldn't do sugar in moderation? Also I see no mention of going zero carb to help with her sugar addiction, what is a saccharide?I am not a scientist so I cannot fully explain to you what sugar does to your body physiologically. But I can direct you to some sources that might further explain it. Suffice it to say that sugar addiction is real. Some forms of sugar have even been altered in a lab to make it more addictive so that you find it even harder to resist.
Which would those be, lol
Also, I hope they really are addicted to sugar. I hope everyone is. If your brain stopped getting that stuff, it'd die.
If you think that it was anyone but that persons fault that they were 300 lbs heavier and it's because something in the world made her like a specific food, and if it never existed she'd be skinny, should we just get rid of foods people are addicted to? luls. So, everyone else should be addicted to it to right? Because science made it addictive? Then why don't a lot of people I know have a sweet tooth? Lots of people are 'addicted' to certain foods and just haven't eaten enough of it to make them 300lbs heavier. It's not because they were wearing a tinfoil hat to stop it from being mutated into evilness. If they had an addiction they learned to control it and didn't blame it on the rest of the world, a specific food, or science for food changing. I had a sweet tooth, and I lost a bunch of weight, and still have a sweet tooth and have to much sugar regularly. And do you know whose fault it was for getting as big as I did? My own. I was upset, and just couldn't deal with my own problems at the time, ignored some things and got a little blind, and that's my own fault.
By the sounds of it sugar wasn't poisonous really...since by that logic anything is. Copious amounts of a specific thing would yep, make you sick.
"The dose makes the poison." I never once suggested that she did not bear the ultimate responsibility for her obesity. But there are ways to help the morbidly obese and there are ways to further their misery. The way to help them is to bring them to the realization that this woman apparently came to--that sugar (and starch too) are poisonous to the morbidly obese. They are typically leptin-resistant and the only way to fix that is to bring high blood sugar levels down long enough for the body to respond appropriately to the enormous number of excess calories (stored as body fat) that they carry with them every day. Sugar and starch boost blood sugar higher and faster than either fat or protein. Thus, some measure of restriction or elimination of sugar and starch are indicated for the morbidly obese. Why make it more difficult for them by insisting that they continue to have poison "in moderation"?
No, you are wrong, sugar and starch are not poisonous to the morbidly obese. Trying to cut those things out completely can make one rather sick. Copious amounts of anything in surplus calories are not good for the morbidly obese. The overweight professor on the twinkie diet brought his blood sugars from 94 to 75. It's not sugar that's the problem.
I'm not insisting that people eat poison, they're not poison. You need sugar or you die. I'm also not saying to go around eating cake all day. If you want to live without a twinkie, you can. I'm saying don't go around telling people delusions like essential things the body needs to live is poison. Particularly when sugar is needed for proper brain function.
The reason why I put that remark in quotes was because it is frequently said around here in the forums--I was not suggesting that you had said it. While it is obvious that ALL plants (indeed, all foods) contain both sugars and starches, separating them from their "housing" in natural whole foods, is a very bad idea. The body can convert anything, protein, fat or carbohydrate into sugar to supply the brain. Don't argue with me--argue with obesity researchers who are more and more pointing to sugar and starch as being precipitating agents in food addiction. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
The excess consumption of fat is also implicated (as well as other chemical agents) but we need to consume at least 35 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. There is no such requirement for carbohydrates.0 -
"...Also I'd like to add that coddling and protecting everyone without letting them be responsible for their own actions also furthers misery. We should help those people live normal lives, thus we can't put everyone with a problem in a bubble. There's also many people who are afraid of heights and addicted to eating mattresses. That doesn't mean we should stop having these things in life. I'm all for helping a person with their problems, but not with solving it by removing things that can be a regular things in a normal persons life. I don't even think it's good to remove things I'm afraid of either, I like dealing with my problems, not removing them necessarily..."
This is a silly statement. Would you say that diabetics should continue to eat foods high on the glycemic index just because you like those foods? How did "fear" enter the discussion? The woman who lost 300 pounds TOOK responsibility for her health and lost the weight. Taking pot shots at her because you don't like her methodology takes nothing away from her achievement.0 -
...this has gotten soooo off track...0
-
You've made it cleat you think sugar is evil.
Trying to pretend you really don't like it is rationalization.
No. Sugar (sucrose) is poisonous to some people--evil, no. It is a quick source of energy for those who can well-tolerate it (but that wouldn't be me or the millions of obese individuals in the world). But, even then, it could be considered an "anti-nutrient" as it takes more nutrients from those who eat it, than is supplied by it. It is not a food--it is a synthetic fraction of a food. It has addictive qualities and it does great harm to those who get "addicted" to it. Here is a link to a blog post written by a woman who lost three hundred pounds after she dealt with her sugar addiction. Enjoy. http://www.300poundsdown.com/2013/06/sugar-addiction-detox-and-gaining-control-over-food.html
As for rationalization, I would say that those who get "depressed" at the thought of doing without it are merely rationalizing their addiction.
That's an ignorant post you linked to, so she's addicted to sugar and apparently can't do moderation, yet offers a shake "detox" with shakes containing some sugar in it? Thought she couldn't do sugar in moderation? Also I see no mention of going zero carb to help with her sugar addiction, what is a saccharide?I am not a scientist so I cannot fully explain to you what sugar does to your body physiologically. But I can direct you to some sources that might further explain it. Suffice it to say that sugar addiction is real. Some forms of sugar have even been altered in a lab to make it more addictive so that you find it even harder to resist.
Which would those be, lol
HFCS, for one.
All those lovely feel-good advertisements about how corn syrup is no different, no, actually even "BETTER" than sugar, notwithstanding. Hah. Am I wrong in recalling that the studies showing the benefits of HFCS were funded by the corn industry? I don't have time to look up the references I read a few years ago when I first started eliminating corn syrup from my diet. I can tell you that the reason I did it was because I finally put 2 and 2 together and realized that I had severe joint pain the day after drinking a soft drink. When I was drinking soft drinks every day, I couldn't figure it out, but when we stopped buying soft drinks for a time and then I had one at a potluck and boom, next day, severe pain, it started to click.
I remember reading that HFCS is more refined, sweeter, and more addictive than cane sugar, and that's one of the reasons it's being added to so many foods, to make you want to eat (i.e. buy) more.
I'm not telling *you* to cut out HFCS or to be afraid of sugar. All I know is that refined sugar doesn't work for me. I empathize with the OP -- if someone offers me something sugary (like store-bought cake) as an act of love, I have to refuse it (gently, of course) out of self-preservation. The agony the next day is simply not worth it, and someone who truly loves me will understand that.
I still miss it -- at a potluck last weekend I sighed at the famous brownies one family brought (how well I remember the yumminess) and the chocolate frosted chocolate cupcakes (we're talking homemade, not crisco and sugar) were so tempting... but in hindsight I'm glad I resisted. For me, the pain is simply not worth it.
I didn't read all 18 pages of comments, but I did get the gist that the OP doesn't even like cake, and yet people are jumping all over her for not liking cake. What if it were liver? (Okay, don't jump all over me if you happen to like liver...)
p.s. Don't worry about me cutting out refined sugar and starving myself; I get plenty of sugars and starches in the fruits and veggies I eat. With the added benefit of vitamins!0 -
homesweeths: "...p.s. Don't worry about me cutting out refined sugar and starving myself; I get plenty of sugars and starches in the fruits and veggies I eat. With the added benefit of vitamins!..."
Not to mention all the phyto-nutrients in fruits and vegetables that are worth their weight in gold. Sugar and starch do not provide the phyto-nutrients needed to keep us healthy. Cancer cells just LOVE high blood sugar. They're not crazy about NK cells that proliferate when hormones are regulated by phyto-nutrients. I say that I like your post--even though we don't have a "like" button. 0 -
I'm really well-versed in not eating what most consider normal food. Let your SIL know in advance that you love her bringing cake. Tell her that you aren't eating some of the ingredients anymore for health reasons, and that you don't want to put her to any trouble, and you'd be happy to prepare yourself a little treat to eat while everyone else enjoys the cake she graciously brings. If she wants to know the details, tell her the truth, skimped on details. I'm not sure what your reasons are, but for example, "My body isn't responding well to some of the ingredients any longer. I've had to cut them out, unfortunately."
PS: Make a dessert from ChocolateCoveredKatie and you'll fit right in. Make enough for everyone to go with the cake.
Just saw that you don't feel comfortable telling her. Can your partner?0 -
The basic choice here is to either eat a slice of birthday cake, with zero health or fitness consequences, or deal with people bringing up your "healthy cake" or "crazy diet" for years to come. One of these is a great deal less trouble than the other.
I don't know OP, but some have suggested she has an eating disorder. Eating something you don't want to without medical treatment/supervision etc can actually have some pretty serious health related consequences if you are suffering from an untreated eating disorder. One little slice may not seem like a big deal to some, but I'd rather have someone eat something they won't feel they have to purge in some form (restriction, cleanses, excessive exercise, vomiting, laxatives, whatever.)
Edit: Just saw that this was already addressed. I don't think OP had an obligation to disclose though; the topic was a general question.0 -
OP posts elsewhere that she is in treatment for an ED.
:laugh:
OP may not want to reveal this fact to her SIL I guess. I suggest OP speak to her therapist about how to deal with birthday cake, because she certainly does not have a healthy relationship with food and may lack the control necessary to deal with something like a slice of cake.
However, OP is receiving treatment and should speak about the issue to that person instead of the internet.
Reading on you tackled this for me already.0 -
The basic choice here is to either eat a slice of birthday cake, with zero health or fitness consequences, or deal with people bringing up your "healthy cake" or "crazy diet" for years to come. One of these is a great deal less trouble than the other.
Um. Zero health or fitness consequences? Well, maybe not for you, and maybe not for OP (but on the other hand, maybe "yes" for OP), but there are people for whom this would have big health and fitness consequences. Reckless generalization. Enormous simplification. False dilemma, to boot.
OTOH, if these are the kinds of relatives you're dealing with, I sympathize.0 -
Wow busy post!
Not sure if this has been put up yet but a fruit "cake"
http://alittleinsanity.com/watermelon-cake/ (hopefully I can post this here!)
I've found great alternatives too where you "ice" your cake with yogurt? Or CoYo for anyone in Australia not eating dairy!0 -
Basically your saying that diabetic are better off consuming pasta than fruit.........it's not about the GI of a food for diabetics, it's the restriction of carbohydrates overall, not to mention when consuming pretty much any meal the GI of any particular food is inconsequential. If you want to follow anything, try the glycemic load of a food, that does tell a story for diabetics.This is a silly statement. Would you say that diabetics should continue to eat foods high on the glycemic index just because you like those foods? How did "fear" enter the discussion? The woman who lost 300 pounds TOOK responsibility for her health and lost the weight. Taking pot shots at her because you don't like her methodology takes nothing away from her achievement.0 -
You just take a bite of a cake because cake is having lots of calorie..0
-
Is it rude to refuse a piece of my own birthday cake?
My sister-in-law always purchases a store bought cake
for my birthday. I do not eat dessert/packaged or, in my view,
'unhealthy'(sugar, fat and other 'questionable' food-like products)items.
Will it be rude to refuse a piece? What can I say to her when I'm offered a
piece?
Thanks!!
A bite of a cake is good and cake is having lots of caloriess0 -
How's about a birthday shake.
Protein shake, that is0 -
Every time I peak into this thread, all I can think of is how much I hate most store bought cakes. Even if someone like a relative kept insisting they buy one for me, I still wouldn't eat it. :noway: I'd *maybe* take 1 "polite" tiny bite if someone was looking at me and the cake was a flavor I generally like, but otherwise, I'd push it around on my plate and toss it when no one was looking. I've done this for years.
I'm a big proponent of "If you don't like it, don't eat it." (One of the things I learned from WW years ago.) You don't have to be rude about not eating something, but there are tons of polite ways to say "no." Can't tell you how many times I've faked being sick or "stuffed from lunch" to avoid eating something someone is insisting that I eat and won't take a simple, "No, thanks" for an answer.
Just my opinion.:flowerforyou:0 -
I think you should be happy about the idea that your sister got you cake and shouldn't focus only on the fact that it is cake... Just have a bite, it won't kill you 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions