cut the SUGAR out

REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm

That's not what either of those articles seem to me to be saying, although perhaps a more science-oriented person could elaborate if I am wrong.

The first is basically about how excessive consumption of sugar can lead to obesity which is itself a risk:

Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.

I don't see how that supports a claim that there's something special about "refined" sugar vs. that found naturally in carrots or peaches. In addition, I don't see how a claim based on quite high consumption by Americans on average indicates that there is some health benefit to eliminating all added sugar. Indeed, if one finds it easier to stick to a weight loss plan or sustain a healthy weight by including sugar or simply prefers one's oatmeal with a bit of sugar, the same argument would say that it's healthier to do so.

The second is again about too much sugar and again doesn't seem to be limited to "refined sugar" at all, but is about a molecule called G6P which is said to accumulate from "eating too much starch and/or sugar."

As others have said already, I don't think there's much controversy that too much of almost anything is bad for you, and sugar is no exception. Where I am not following the argument is why that means everyone should always eschew "added sugar" in all cases.

I'm not an expert, but refined sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose. It metabolizes differently and can spike blood sugar levels. The sugars found in fruits and grains are made up of a combination of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, it various by food source but it is accompanied by fiber - fiber slows the digestion process and helps keep sugar spikes in check. That applies to whole raw food, it begins to change when foods are cooked. There are (to me) a host of complicated monosacchirides and disacchirides and the enterocytes in the intestine walls play a part too. There are 2 different metabolic pathways. I slept through a LOT of my labs in college, I'm not really a science person, so I can't go any further than what I did. My cardiologist told me to restrict refined sugar and table salt - so I do. It goes beyond eating whatever a person wants in moderation.

I think most people are respectful but we have to realize that there are 40 m people on this site. There have been many discussions but I think the general consensus is to just ignore those who are not.

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group

Ignore those who are not of the 40 m (?). Those who are/not discussing? I am so confused...

REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm

That's not what either of those articles seem to me to be saying, although perhaps a more science-oriented person could elaborate if I am wrong.

The first is basically about how excessive consumption of sugar can lead to obesity which is itself a risk:

Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.

I don't see how that supports a claim that there's something special about "refined" sugar vs. that found naturally in carrots or peaches. In addition, I don't see how a claim based on quite high consumption by Americans on average indicates that there is some health benefit to eliminating all added sugar. Indeed, if one finds it easier to stick to a weight loss plan or sustain a healthy weight by including sugar or simply prefers one's oatmeal with a bit of sugar, the same argument would say that it's healthier to do so.

The second is again about too much sugar and again doesn't seem to be limited to "refined sugar" at all, but is about a molecule called G6P which is said to accumulate from "eating too much starch and/or sugar."

As others have said already, I don't think there's much controversy that too much of almost anything is bad for you, and sugar is no exception. Where I am not following the argument is why that means everyone should always eschew "added sugar" in all cases.

I'm not an expert, but refined sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose. It metabolizes differently and can spike blood sugar levels. The sugars found in fruits and grains are made up of a combination of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, it various by food source but it is accompanied by fiber - fiber slows the digestion process and helps keep sugar spikes in check. That applies to whole raw food, it begins to change when foods are cooked. There are (to me) a host of complicated monosacchirides and disacchirides and the enterocytes in the intestine walls play a part too. There are 2 different metabolic pathways. I slept through a LOT of my labs in college, I'm not really a science person, so I can't go any further than what I did. My cardiologist told me to restrict refined sugar and table salt - so I do. It goes beyond eating whatever a person wants in moderation.

I think most people are respectful but we have to realize that there are 40 m people on this site. There have been many discussions but I think the general consensus is to just ignore those who are not.

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group

Ignore those who are not of the 40 m (?). Those who are/not discussing? I am so confused...

I think it was "ignore those who are not respectful."

This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....

Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?

Get rid of your car and your television.

This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....

Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?

Get rid of your car and your television.

I think this advice is just a tad simplistic and unrealistic.. :indifferent:

Move more, walk instead of driving whenever possible, do more physical activity and less sedentary activity like watching excessive amounts of TVs, sure - but get rid of them entirely?

I don't think so.

DYEMFP?

You should know the rules by now. If something taken to excess is bad for us, then the only logical response to eliminate that thing entirely...for optimal health...or something...because science...and stuff.

I'm having the same problem, and this is the main reason it has taken me so long to lose the excess weight. Sugar is the most addictive substance I have ever come across.

I'll bet sugar is not as addictive as your car. That ton of tin is the most addictive substance in America and is the cause of most obesity.

You seem remarkably anti-car.

I am very new here but thought I'd chime in. This is what is working for me: First, I get most of my sugar from fruits. Second, I approach sugar like I do salt. I am trying more foods without added flavorings (salt, sugar, whatever), some I really enjoy in their naked state, and some take a little more getting used to. My weakness has always been chocolate. Now I treat myself to chocolate that is at least 85% cocao (sp?). A little bitter at first but I find that I really like the taste and don't miss all the added sugar you find in regular chocolate.

As I had pointed out before, your body does not know the difference between sugar it gets from fruit and sugar it gets from any other source (i.e., cookies, cake, etc).

So, you're back to claiming - in the portion that I bolded - that eating 10,000 calories a day of chicken breast can result in zero weight gain or loss, with no corroborating statement about the amount of exercise needed to maintain that stasis. If this is an incorrect understanding of your position, please clarify.

I am very new here but thought I'd chime in. This is what is working for me: First, I get most of my sugar from fruits. Second, I approach sugar like I do salt. I am trying more foods without added flavorings (salt, sugar, whatever), some I really enjoy in their naked state, and some take a little more getting used to. My weakness has always been chocolate. Now I treat myself to chocolate that is at least 85% cocao (sp?). A little bitter at first but I find that I really like the taste and don't miss all the added sugar you find in regular chocolate.

As I had pointed out before, your body does not know the difference between sugar it gets from fruit and sugar it gets from any other source (i.e., cookies, cake, etc).

If you somehow extract the sugar from the rest of the food it's eat with, yes, that's true. The sugar itself is processed exactly the same.

However, what happens in your body regarding glucose and insulin levels IS different when you eat a piece of fruit versus when you eat a piece of cake.

That said, if you're not diabetic (of have some other metabolic disorder related to glucose/insulin processing) and are not in a group considered high-risk for such a disease, then the difference is inconsequential.

I am very new here but thought I'd chime in. This is what is working for me: First, I get most of my sugar from fruits. Second, I approach sugar like I do salt. I am trying more foods without added flavorings (salt, sugar, whatever), some I really enjoy in their naked state, and some take a little more getting used to. My weakness has always been chocolate. Now I treat myself to chocolate that is at least 85% cocao (sp?). A little bitter at first but I find that I really like the taste and don't miss all the added sugar you find in regular chocolate.

As I had pointed out before, your body does not know the difference between sugar it gets from fruit and sugar it gets from any other source (i.e., cookies, cake, etc).

If you somehow extract the sugar from the rest of the food it's eat with, yes, that's true. The sugar itself is processed exactly the same.

However, what happens in your body regarding glucose and insulin levels IS different when you eat a piece of fruit versus when you eat a piece of cake.

That said, if you're not diabetic (of have some other metabolic disorder related to glucose/insulin processing) and are not in a group considered high-risk for such a disease, then the difference is inconsequential.

that is the point here. For normal, healthy people who are simply trying to lose weight, there is no reason to 'cut' out sugar, carbs, or any other type of food. Simply eating at a calorie deficit while a eating a healthy balance of food will work. Eating treats is fine too, as long as it is in moderation. Sugar is not bad for you in normal amounts.

I am very new here but thought I'd chime in. This is what is working for me: First, I get most of my sugar from fruits. Second, I approach sugar like I do salt. I am trying more foods without added flavorings (salt, sugar, whatever), some I really enjoy in their naked state, and some take a little more getting used to. My weakness has always been chocolate. Now I treat myself to chocolate that is at least 85% cocao (sp?). A little bitter at first but I find that I really like the taste and don't miss all the added sugar you find in regular chocolate.

As I had pointed out before, your body does not know the difference between sugar it gets from fruit and sugar it gets from any other source (i.e., cookies, cake, etc).

If you somehow extract the sugar from the rest of the food it's eat with, yes, that's true. The sugar itself is processed exactly the same.

However, what happens in your body regarding glucose and insulin levels IS different when you eat a piece of fruit versus when you eat a piece of cake.

That said, if you're not diabetic (of have some other metabolic disorder related to glucose/insulin processing) and are not in a group considered high-risk for such a disease, then the difference is inconsequential.

that is the point here. For normal, healthy people who are simply trying to lose weight, there is no reason to 'cut' out sugar, carbs, or any other type of food. Simply eating at a calorie deficit while a eating a healthy balance of food will work. Eating treats is fine too, as long as it is in moderation. Sugar is not bad for you in normal amounts.

It's also not "good" for you. It's neutral. Food choice is not a moral choice. And if you want to talk about the nutrition it brings. It's not a required nutrient. Yes, it will fulfill carbohydrate needs, but you can get that from other things, and sugar (and really we're talking sucrose/fructose here) doesn't provide micronutrients that you can't get elsewhere either. So really, no one is going to harm themselves nutritionally speaking if they cut down or cut out sugar. So it's really, really neutral.

But there are plenty of reasons a normal, healthy person who is trying to lose weight may want to cut out sugar. It may help them reach a deficit, it may help them feel more in control, it may be part of wanting to change their eating habits. They may just want to.. that's a perfectly valid reason... and it's not your job or mine to audit the food choices of others.

I understand shouting down zealots who say that everyone needs to do it this way or that our societal ills are somehow based in sugar (haha that's my favorite), but pushing back on people who say "this is what works for me" or "this is how I do it". No. You become a zealot yourself then.

It's not a question of zealotry, it's a question of touting a program that proves often to be unsustainable. Attempting to cut out a food source that many find to be satisfying in moderation while still fitting it into a calorie deficit proves to be ultimately much more sustainable in the long run for many more people than a 'diet' program that requires a person to try to stick to cutting out something they often find they cannot live without.