cutting out sugar

You never hear advice that it is okay to smoke in moderation because it causes cancer, but you continually hear on these boards that refined sugar is okay in moderation despite the fact that it causes diabetes.

Except the fact that even the American Diabetes Association says too much sugar causing diabetes is a myth. There is no link between any one food that contributes to diabetes.

I don't think you are correct. According to the ADA, on their web page diabetes.org, they do state sugar is associated to diabetes type 2. Here's a quote from ADA:

Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:

regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!

QFT^^

Sugar is associated with diabetes and insulin resistance. The ADA actually gives some of the worst advice to diabetics. They recommend literally hundreds of grams of carbs per day when many diabetics could limit carbs and significantly stabilize blood sugar.

Consumption of sugar causes your body to release insulin. Insulin causes your body to store fat which causes your body to burn sugar. Eventually your body consumes the sugar, but the insulin is still hanging around. You then feel hungry and desire more sugar.

http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


When I feel hungry I desire fats and protein...not sugar btw. Having a lot of your caloric intake from sugar is probably not the best for satiety, but that is a different issue than being discussed here.

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

QFT^^

Sugar is associated with diabetes and insulin resistance. The ADA actually gives some of the worst advice to diabetics. They recommend literally hundreds of grams of carbs per day when many diabetics could limit carbs and significantly stabilize blood sugar.

Consumption of sugar causes your body to release insulin. Insulin causes your body to store fat which causes your body to burn sugar. Eventually your body consumes the sugar, but the insulin is still hanging around. You then feel hungry and desire more sugar.

This is absolutely why I've made the decision to limit processed foods and sugars. My father developed Type 2 diabetes in his older years and I firmly believe that it was because of his candy addiction. My father was a recovering alcoholic--sober through A. A. for 52 years when he passed away. Like so many addicts, my father traded sugar for alcohol. And now, I've been trying to get my Type 2 diabetic sweetie to limit his sugar and carb intake for years, but he's addicted and won't give up his sodas and white sourdough toast. He carries his weight around his middle and there's nothing anyone can tell me that will make me believe that the processed foods and sugars he downs daily are not responsible for his health condition, even though the amount of food he eats every day is reasonable and not excessive.

I choose a healthier life.

I am a Type 2 Diabetic diagnosed in 2007 at a then weight of 560 lbs. unable to walk pretty much trapped in my house for over 2 years do to my weight issues... I had an inoperable liver, failing kidneys and was a ticking time bomb. My Endo looked at my blood work and bluntly said to my face at the rate you are going with your blood work and eating (consuming over 10,000 calories a day), he gave me a year maybe 2 at best and someone was going to be digging me an early grave. I heeded his warning and asked for help. he grabbed his script pad from his pocket and said and I quote "I can't help you with the mental side of this journey, you are going to have to seek out therapy for that but here is a script to meet with my dietician and another for Aquatic therapy, I would advise you to seek out all 3 and I want to see you back here in 3 weeks to begin monitoring your progress." I took all of his advance started therapy, went to PT for Aquatic therapy at the YMCA therapy pool, and sat with the dietician. Her advice from the get go was work with my mental therapist to get a handle on my food addictions and establish a eating plan that is sustainable... She said to use the KISS method (Keep it simple stupid) and that I was to log and measure everything I consume, stick to the number of calories we set, hit my 3 macro's and beyond that just work hard.... I asked about carbs and sugar and whatnot and she told me sugar is a subset of carbs and if you are eating within your set calorie limits, hitting your macro's then there was absolutely no reason to track sugar consumption period...

So I took her advice never worried about sugar (replacing tracking it with tracking fiber). Flash foward 4 years (3 years of weight loss and a little over a year of maintenance) and I have lost and kept off 312 lbs. , I exercise 6 days a week, have graduated the 12 step program for my addiction to food, and have A1c's that have average 5.3 over the last 2 years... and have perfect bloodwork and no liver or kidney issues anymore... I started out back then consuming around 240 grams of carbs a day with carbs making up 40-50% of my macro's depending on whether I am losing or maintaining and over my lose have increased my calorie intake and today I consume over 400 grams of carbs daily in maintenance... Type 2 diabetic issues run more so than just having a sugar issues as you say, there are multiple variables that come into play.... Sorry for your lose.......

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

I went without sugar for a year and dropped weight consistently until I had lost about 65 pounds. As soon as I started adding sugar back into my diet I gained it all back. Bottom line sugar has no nutritional value, it is not needed for any reason and provides nothing but empty calories. Not sure why so many people are pro sugar but you will be better off without it.

You gained it back because you ate at a surplus, or gained it back adding sugar to your diet while still in a deficit?

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Here are some articles published in medical journals stating that harmful effects of sugar go way beyond empty calories. When consumed in excess, it can lead to severe harmful effects on metabolism and cause insulin resistance, fatty liver disease and various other metabolic disorders. The studies show that in the long run, a high consumption of sugar is strongly associated with the risk of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and even cancer.

Stanhope KL, et al. Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009.

Stanhope KL, et al. Adverse metabolic effects of dietary fructose: results from the recent epidemiological, clinical, and mechanistic studies. Current Opinion in Lipidology, 2013.

Ludwig DS, et al. Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. The Lancet, 2001.

Schulze MB, et al. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2004.

Bostick RM, et al. Sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Cancer Causes & Control, 1994.

You're welcome.

Are you now differentiating sugars?

Do you have the links to the full studies?

Also, I did not see anything about autism. Have any links for that?

Bascially, all most of them are saying is that sugar = high calories = greater chance of obesity = greater chance of health issues.

Oh, and the link to your copy pasta: http://authoritynutrition.com/how-to-win-an-argument-with-a-nutritionist/

RGv2, I would agree, but why? What changed in my appetite that after eliminating sugar and flour from my diet that allowed me to eat whatever and whenever I wanted at a deficit without any effort, to only begin overeating again when I decided to add processed foods (bread, sugar, etc.) back into my diet? Why now for the past 3 months have I eliminated carbs (no sugar, no flour) have I dropped 25 pounds without effort and eating as much or whenever I want? I guess that is really the point.

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Excess protein is disposed of by the liver via gluconeogenesis. This metabolic pathway converts proteins to sugar. It takes a little longer for the sugar to enter the blood stream, but excess protein is not constructive for optimal results due to the hormonal responses of the sugar. This is especially important for people with damaged metabolisms (prediabetes, insulin resistance, ect).

Protein is still insulinogenic. If insulin were some magical fat storage device that can cause fat accumulation without overconsumption of calories then why aren't people avoiding protein too?

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Excess protein is disposed of by the liver via gluconeogenesis. This metabolic pathway converts proteins to sugar. It takes a little longer for the sugar to enter the blood stream, but excess protein is not constructive for optimal results due to the hormonal responses of the sugar. This is especially important for people with damaged metabolisms (prediabetes, insulin resistance, ect).

Sorry - not getting your point. (not snarky btw), I am just not getting the relation to what you/I posted.

Also, fats blunt the insulin response. I really recommend having a look at the article I posted earlier.

I also think that differentiation needs to be made between someone with no insulin resistance, especially someone who is active, and someone already with insulin resistance (but that is an issue with carbs in general, not just sugar).

My only point was that protein should not be avoided, but protein in excess will result in excess sugar via gluconeogenis. I couldn't agree more that there is a big difference in insulin sensitivity between individuals and this point cannot be over emphasized. Young thin person doing strenuous exercise is way different than an inactive person who has yo yo dieted 4 or 5 times and is carrying lots of excess adipose tissue. Exercise and dropping adipose tissue along with carb restricted diets are the best way to deal with any metabolic dysfunction especially diabetes. Again I completely agree that carbs should be eaten with a fat. On hard training days I might have a sweet potato, but will always eat it with sour cream and butter. Refined sugar though really doesn't have a place in a proper human diet.

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Excess protein is disposed of by the liver via gluconeogenesis. This metabolic pathway converts proteins to sugar. It takes a little longer for the sugar to enter the blood stream, but excess protein is not constructive for optimal results due to the hormonal responses of the sugar. This is especially important for people with damaged metabolisms (prediabetes, insulin resistance, ect).

Protein is still insulinogenic. If insulin were some magical fat storage device that can cause fat accumulation without overconsumption of calories then why aren't people avoiding protein too?

Insulin controls blood sugar by forcing storage of blood soluble lipids thereby basically running your metabolism on sugar. It has other catabolic effects and is why carbs and protein help muscle gain. My original point way back was that sugars spike insulin which eventually leads to a hunger response later because blood sugar eventually drops inciting hunger. This is why if you eat a couple of pieces of toast with jelly 2 hrs later you are hungry. My main point was that cutting the sugars will result in less hunger.

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Excess protein is disposed of by the liver via gluconeogenesis. This metabolic pathway converts proteins to sugar. It takes a little longer for the sugar to enter the blood stream, but excess protein is not constructive for optimal results due to the hormonal responses of the sugar. This is especially important for people with damaged metabolisms (prediabetes, insulin resistance, ect).

Protein is still insulinogenic. If insulin were some magical fat storage device that can cause fat accumulation without overconsumption of calories then why aren't people avoiding protein too?

Insulin controls blood sugar by forcing storage of blood soluble lipids thereby basically running your metabolism on sugar. It has other catabolic effects and is why carbs and protein help muscle gain. My original point way back was that sugars spike insulin which eventually leads to a hunger response later because blood sugar eventually drops inciting hunger. This is why if you eat a couple of pieces of toast with jelly 2 hrs later you are hungry. My main point was that cutting the sugars will result in less hunger.

I actually think that is very individual tbh..and sort of agree - but not necessarily for the same reasons. Protein, fats and carbs with fiber are more satiating and therefore will curb your appetite. Appetite is not always an issue with some people however.

Edited to try to be clearer.

Problem with sugar is, its hi cal for weight. I do think sugar is an addiction and trying to cut it out is a good thing if you want to lose weight. I think of it like this. One teaspoon of sugar is 15 cals. But 1 cup of frozen veg is 25 cals. I would try to not have any in the house and really lean on anyone else in the house who keeps it. My wife wont let me get rid of it all so I keep my food together so I don't see her food. Fruits that have unrefined sugar is a good boost to your metab so don't think that no sugar is good. Think in terms of refined sugar is bad and you should eat as little of it as possible in order to maintain weight loss and good health. But if your not a diabetic, make sure to give yourself some just so you don't feel deprived and fall off the wagon. Im a coffee person, and gotta have it every day with cream and sugar.

Sugar has the same calories per gram as other carbs, last time I looked.

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Excess protein is disposed of by the liver via gluconeogenesis. This metabolic pathway converts proteins to sugar. It takes a little longer for the sugar to enter the blood stream, but excess protein is not constructive for optimal results due to the hormonal responses of the sugar. This is especially important for people with damaged metabolisms (prediabetes, insulin resistance, ect).

Sorry - not getting your point. (not snarky btw), I am just not getting the relation to what you/I posted.

Also, fats blunt the insulin response. I really recommend having a look at the article I posted earlier.

I also think that differentiation needs to be made between someone with no insulin resistance, especially someone who is active, and someone already with insulin resistance (but that is an issue with carbs in general, not just sugar).

My only point was that protein should not be avoided, but protein in excess will result in excess sugar via gluconeogenis. I couldn't agree more that there is a big difference in insulin sensitivity between individuals and this point cannot be over emphasized. Young thin person doing strenuous exercise is way different than an inactive person who has yo yo dieted 4 or 5 times and is carrying lots of excess adipose tissue. Exercise and dropping adipose tissue along with carb restricted diets are the best way to deal with any metabolic dysfunction especially diabetes. Again I completely agree that carbs should be eaten with a fat. On hard training days I might have a sweet potato, but will always eat it with sour cream and butter. Refined sugar though really doesn't have a place in a proper human diet.

I think we are more or less on the same page. I do not see how excess protein is an issue however. The point I was making (not very well probably) was that protein is insulinogenic also - not only sugar (or carbs to be more precise). I agree, protein should not be avoided, but then again, for a healthy active individual, neither should sugar (in fact, it can be beneficial to work outs). Context is very important.

This discussion should probably die here however...yes sugar can be beneficial. However, there are many athletes, especially ultra endurance athletes switching over to high fat diets. Even in full ketosis people will still maintain enough muscle glycogen for anaerobic performance. Good examples of this are the current 2 time winner of the western states 100 and the current record holder for 100 miles (just broken) did the events on a ketogenic diet. Also, the LA Lakers have switched their players to a high fat diet, probably not ketogenic though. These guys are strategically using sugar in states of hyper insulin sensitivity to get elite levels of performance with minimal GI distress side effects. Low carbohydrate diet and elite performance athletes is a recent and interesting development.

The topic was re sugar - now it's carbs? And now high performance endurance athletes? Of which many many more are high carb than doing keto.

Did you happen to find the link to the studies on dementia that you mentioned? Or causal ones to cancer?

Here is some on cancer. It is not a new concept. Cancer cells typically rely on anaerobic metabolism meaning they can only burn sugar and not fat or ketones. Therefore excess blood glucose levels stimulate cancer cells. In fact the radioactive glucose dyes are very effective at imaging in PET scans. (Gatenby RA. Potential role of FDG-PET imaging in understanding tumor-host interaction. J Nucl Med 1995 May;36(5):893-9)

1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis -- a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct -- compared to normal tissues.
Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb;123:309-14

A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer.
Hoehn, SK, et al. Complex versus simple carbohydrates and mammary tumors in mice. Nutr Cancer 1979;1(3):27.

A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia). There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.10 This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor growth
Santisteban GA, et al. Glycemic modulation of tumor tolerance in a mouse model of breast cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1985 Nov 15;132(3):1174-9.

A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.
Moerman CJ, et al. Dietary sugar intake in the aetiology of biliary tract cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Apr;22(2):207-14

An epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
Seeley S. Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption. Med Hypotheses 1983 Jul;11(3):319-27

These studies demonstrate that shutting down gluconeogenesis benefits cancer treatment: Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients. Gold's work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate's ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.15 A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.16
Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate in cancer patients with weight loss. A placebo-controlled clinical experience. Cancer 1987 Feb 1;59(3):406-10
Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate influence on nutritional status and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1990 Jan;8(1):9-15

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/229
"We find a very straightforward and clear association between high-glycemic foods and the risk of colorectal cancers," said lead researcher Simin Liu, MD, ScD

This is the same advice that has led to almost 10% of the population having type 2 diabetes. It is a disease of insulin resistance and sugar causes spikes in insulin. The ADA's advice doesn't take account current research. In fact, current research shows this same metabolic dysfunction causes a host of other diseases as well like dementia, heart disease, etc.

Not sure who you are directing your comment at, but could you point us to this research?

Also, I am pretty sure that obesity has something to do with the prevalence of insulin resistance.

Also, protein is insulinogenic. Should we avoid that also?

Excess protein is disposed of by the liver via gluconeogenesis. This metabolic pathway converts proteins to sugar. It takes a little longer for the sugar to enter the blood stream, but excess protein is not constructive for optimal results due to the hormonal responses of the sugar. This is especially important for people with damaged metabolisms (prediabetes, insulin resistance, ect).

Sorry - not getting your point. (not snarky btw), I am just not getting the relation to what you/I posted.

Also, fats blunt the insulin response. I really recommend having a look at the article I posted earlier.

I also think that differentiation needs to be made between someone with no insulin resistance, especially someone who is active, and someone already with insulin resistance (but that is an issue with carbs in general, not just sugar).

My only point was that protein should not be avoided, but protein in excess will result in excess sugar via gluconeogenis. I couldn't agree more that there is a big difference in insulin sensitivity between individuals and this point cannot be over emphasized. Young thin person doing strenuous exercise is way different than an inactive person who has yo yo dieted 4 or 5 times and is carrying lots of excess adipose tissue. Exercise and dropping adipose tissue along with carb restricted diets are the best way to deal with any metabolic dysfunction especially diabetes. Again I completely agree that carbs should be eaten with a fat. On hard training days I might have a sweet potato, but will always eat it with sour cream and butter. Refined sugar though really doesn't have a place in a proper human diet.

I think we are more or less on the same page. I do not see how excess protein is an issue however. The point I was making (not very well probably) was that protein is insulinogenic also - not only sugar (or carbs to be more precise). I agree, protein should not be avoided, but then again, for a healthy active individual, neither should sugar (in fact, it can be beneficial to work outs). Context is very important.

This discussion should probably die here however...yes sugar can be beneficial. However, there are many athletes, especially ultra endurance athletes switching over to high fat diets. Even in full ketosis people will still maintain enough muscle glycogen for anaerobic performance. Good examples of this are the current 2 time winner of the western states 100 and the current record holder for 100 miles (just broken) did the events on a ketogenic diet. Also, the LA Lakers have switched their players to a high fat diet, probably not ketogenic though. These guys are strategically using sugar in states of hyper insulin sensitivity to get elite levels of performance with minimal GI distress side effects. Low carbohydrate diet and elite performance athletes is a recent and interesting development.

The topic was re sugar - now it's carbs? And now high performance endurance athletes? Of which many many more are high carb than doing keto.

Did you happen to find the link to the studies on dementia that you mentioned? Or causal ones to cancer?

You brought up the subject of athletic performance not me. I was just trying to develop that topic. My opionion is that sugar can help used correctly but excess carbohydrate consumption beyond restoring glycogen stores does not contribute to athletic performance. If you are looking for hypertrophy carbs can help as well as insulin is catabolic.