No more added or artificial sugar: who's with me?

And if you want to argue that point, take a deep breath and realize that you're surrounded by people who have been by every possible measure far more successful than you, over a far longer period of time, who have not felt the need to give up sugar.

and until i started eating food with sugar again after splitting with the first wife. i didn't need to diet! as i wasn't overweight and hadn't been for 33 years of my life! thats 3/4 of my life! just in case deep enough breath for you?:bigsmile: :explode:

Or just two correlating factors, and the wrong one being pinpointed as causal?

This would IMO be an example of the consequence not necessarily follow from the premise...

Fructose increasing appetite

spot on :flowerforyou:

is not the same as fructose making you fat. I was actually saying just the other day that if I eat a Clif bar I actually get hungrier for about half an hour. So long as I avoid acting on that hunger - knowing that it is fake - it does not have an adverse impact on my weight.

then there is my point proven.
are you sir able to smoke a death stick while with friends and maybe a pint of fine real ale. without then buying a pack the next day?
then if you are sir you are a very lucky person indeed. not sure there are many in the world who can say the same!
i rest my case ladies and gentlemen of the jury. just before you pass the death sentence, i'd urge you to be 100% sure , it might just be the biggest miscarriage of justice in recent human history if your wrong!:noway:

You keep coming back to this false analogy with smoking. Smoking is not essential for life. Eating is. That makes these things very, very different beasts.

Sugar is a commonplace, harmless (in moderation) ingredient in many foods. Yes, it can cause a temporary appetite spike (I say 'can' because it doesn't always happen). But all that is needed to overcome this is knowledge + a little willpower. It does not need to be removed completely from the diet unless you are not willing to gain and exercise these two things.

If you cannot learn to moderate sugar consumption, then the logical next step is indeed to remove it from your diet. However, hundreds of people on MFP have been able to moderate sugar consumption, and gone on to see massive amounts of success.

By telling people to remove sugar altogether from the outset, and that this is the only manner by which they will succeed, you are putting the cart before the horse, and dooming many to failure.

What I would like to see people do is to learn how to control their diet while still partaking of food they enjoy in moderate quantities. If they absolutely cannot do this, then, and only then, should they begin to remove the foods that are triggering their overeating from their diet.

You gained weight because you started eating too much.

nothing gets past you does it!:happy: and why did i start eating too much after 33 years of being able to know when i was full. did divorce suddenly make me forget that? or perhaps it had something to do with the high sugar content found in all the foods i could suddenly eat ? which my (overweight) 2nd wife introduced me too .she was american oh yes:brokenheart:

Again: you are surrounded by people in this thread who have been far more successful than you while eating sugar.

so i'll carry on piling on the pounds then live like a matyr for 5 or 6 years after i've nurtured all the health problems that come with being overweight, then stop sugar , be able to regulate myself again, lose maybe 100lb instead of 40lb and that will make my argument more valid?
cause if i'd been eating badly for 40 years instead of 10 thats likely to have been where i am.
btw when with wife no1 i reckon i was eating nearly 3000 a day! easy . mind i'll expect that was the 40mile a week running habit that kept that off eh?:yawn:

Again: you are surrounded by people in this thread who have been far more successful than you while eating sugar.

so i'll carry on piling on the pounds then live like a matyr for 5 or 6 years after i've nurtured all the health problems that come with being overweight, then stop sugar , be able to regulate myself again, lose maybe 100lb instead of 40lb and that will make my argument more valid?
cause if i'd been eating badly for 40 years instead of 10 thats likely to have been where i am.
btw when with wife no1 i reckon i was eating nearly 3000 a day! easy . mind i'll expect that was the 40mile a week running habit that kept that off eh?:yawn:

It's great that you've been able to lose weight. We're all happy for you.

Your mistake is thinking that it's sugar that made you overweight and eliminating sugar is what made you lose weight. It's calories that made you gain weight, and reducing calories made you lose weight.

Many of us have been perfectly successful losing weight by reducing calories without eliminating sugar.

Your argument appears to be that sugar makes people fat, but you are surrounded by people who prove that is not the case.

This thread keeps delivering. Here you go, although I'm sure few if any will read these.

Sugar as related to weight loss/control:



Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.

www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism



Here's studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference

An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.



Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.



Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.



No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

CONCLUSION:

This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.



Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

Summary

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation


EDIT: Formatting

Whewww!! Everyone is a scientist!! Thanks to google, cuz we know the internet doesn't lie!!

I like to keep things simple. Eat an entire package of cookies in one day = bad. Eat healthy all day and reward yourself with 2 or 3 cookies = OK in my book.

Re: added sugar

My cookie dough comes with the sugar already in it, not added by me. Does that count as added? If yes than lolnope this isn't for me. If no then hey, I could be on board. I only add sweetener to tea and I drink too much tea anyway.

How could you possibly drink too much tea??? I'm chronically freezing, so tea is my BFF.

I'm an Englishman in the US, so for me tea (so-called "builder's tea" - black tea with milk and sugar) was like a cultural lifeline to my home. I drank 5 or 6 mugs a day. Unfortunately this resulted in me getting too much oxalate and started giving me kidney stones. If you've never had a kidney stone, the medical community compares the pain to gun shot wounds and giving birth.

So for me, yes, you can definitely drink too much tea. And as much as it pained me to give it up, it hurt a heck of a lot less than the kidney stones :laugh:

I had no idea about this. I drink a friggin' ton of black tea. And guess what? I had a huge calcium kidney stone about two years ago. I can't believe no one mentioned this to me in my treatment. They all harped on about the soda they assumed I drank and was lying about and not getting enough water. (I drink plenty and have a half a soda maybe once a month) I obviously need to do more research...

My kidney stone was the only pain I ever gave a 10 on the 1-10 scale. And I've had three kids. Never been shot. My dad has though and he said morphine took most of the pain away. Morphine dropped my kidney stone pain to a 7. But my dad is also kind of a badass.

Sorry to derail, OP. :flowerforyou:
I think reducing sugar in your diet is a worthy goal. Removing added sugar altogether may not be sustainable long term, but if you have a sugar problem and it makes you more aware of sugar in your diet, go for it. Don't be too hard on yourself, though. Even if you end up reducing rather than eliminating, that's still a good thing, right?

ETA: I lost 50 lbs (and have kept it off for over 6 years) by reducing my caloric intake. I still eat cookies, just not an entire box. (My ticker reflects new goals????)

LOL Sugar is evil people are just way too adorable.

Look at you guys - all willfully ignorant and stuff.

So cute.

Re: added sugar

My cookie dough comes with the sugar already in it, not added by me. Does that count as added? If yes than lolnope this isn't for me. If no then hey, I could be on board. I only add sweetener to tea and I drink too much tea anyway.

How could you possibly drink too much tea??? I'm chronically freezing, so tea is my BFF.

I'm an Englishman in the US, so for me tea (so-called "builder's tea" - black tea with milk and sugar) was like a cultural lifeline to my home. I drank 5 or 6 mugs a day. Unfortunately this resulted in me getting too much oxalate and started giving me kidney stones. If you've never had a kidney stone, the medical community compares the pain to gun shot wounds and giving birth.

So for me, yes, you can definitely drink too much tea. And as much as it pained me to give it up, it hurt a heck of a lot less than the kidney stones :laugh:

I had no idea about this. I drink a friggin' ton of black tea. And guess what? I had a huge calcium kidney stone about two years ago. I can't believe no one mentioned this to me in my treatment. They all harped on about the soda they assumed I drank and was lying about and not getting enough water. (I drink plenty and have a half a soda maybe once a month) I obviously need to do more research...

My kidney stone was the only pain I ever gave a 10 on the 1-10 scale. And I've had three kids. Never been shot. My dad has though and he said morphine took most of the pain away. Morphine dropped my kidney stone pain to a 7. But my dad is also kind of a badass.

Sorry to derail, OP. :flowerforyou:
I think reducing sugar in your diet is a worthy goal. Removing added sugar altogether may not be sustainable long term, but if you have a sugar problem and it makes you more aware of sugar in your diet, go for it. Don't be too hard on yourself, though. Even if you end up reducing rather than eliminating, that's still a good thing, right?

Ask for your medical records and find out what type of stone it was. Not all stones are related to tea, but it's worthwhile to find out.

Thanks It was calcium. I also ate a LOT of spinach and sweet potatoes, but I knew to reduce them. Maybe I glossed over the reduce tea consumption part? Denial?

Whewww!! Everyone is a scientist!! Thanks to google, cuz we know the internet doesn't lie!!

I like to keep things simple. Eat an entire package of cookies in one day = bad. Eat healthy all day and reward yourself with 2 or 3 cookies = OK in my book.

You shut up with that common sense approach to moderation. Complete deprivation is the only way to go! Once you eat those 2 or 3 cookies you can't possibly then resist eating the rest of the packet. And the ice cream in the fridge. And a burger. And your cat.

ETA: A number of people in this thread actually have studied the sciences to advanced levels, by the way

Even without having studies science, nothing but anti-intellectualism prevents anyone from reading scientific articles - the information is out there. And it's mostly free.

Never ate cat - or not knowingly. There are days I might eat a small child, you know, 'cause cookies.

I want to write this down to help solidify my intentions into actually doing this. I want to see how long I can go without eating any added or artificial sugar. I know that it's only adding empty calories and I can get plenty of sweetness from natural sources. I can do this. Here we go! Who's with me?

I'm in! not good to eliminate a food "category" but just bad foods, that are not actually real food at all....

ps.... wonder why the sugar industry places people to post on this site???

I want to write this down to help solidify my intentions into actually doing this. I want to see how long I can go without eating any added or artificial sugar. I know that it's only adding empty calories and I can get plenty of sweetness from natural sources. I can do this. Here we go! Who's with me?

I'm in! not good to eliminate a food "category" but just bad foods, that are not actually real food at all....

ps.... wonder why the sugar industry places people to post on this site???

The "sugar industry"? You really think that Domino or whoever is paying people to post on MFP and extol the virtues of sugar?

I've been accused of being a plant for fast food companies, sugar companies, ice cream companies, and the government. I wish all those people were paying me, because then I wouldn't need a real job.

have you seen how many athletes that have severe health problems in later life?
they also use , steriods, betablockers, and an awful lot of other unhealthy drugs . should i start using them too?

Really, which ones have you seen? Name me an athlete with severe health problems due to fructose ingestion...

knowledgeable "real" athletes know the dangers of excess sugar consumption, I would think... They eat "real" food, not fake food