cut the SUGAR out

Sugar doesn't make you fat, homey. Caloric surpluses do.

#truth

I am over my sugar macro everyday. But most of it is from fruit .. and a small amount from good normal food.

Thus I am not concerned as only a small portion is from "other food", aka extra dark chocolate I eat every morning. I am well below the daily recommended amount of sugar from processed food.

I never intended to get into the "Fruit vs Processed Sugar" argument. I was only relating to the OP what I've been doing. In fact, at this very moment, I am enjoying a nice helping of cantaloupe (yummy) and celebrating my 1.5# loss for the week. Works for me! :happy:

Agreed, who is saying they do not?

In the nested quotes RIGHT ABOVE YOUR QUESTION:

Carbs - converted to glucose, the glucose is then - taken up by the body as fuel, stored in the muscles and liver (limited storage), converted into body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.

I have no idea who said what at this point, but after the assertion was made that fat comes from carbs, someone else said

So eating 10,000 calories of chicken breast won't make you fat? Fascinating.

At least read what you're responding to?

I think you have a mixture of different quotes.

Someone made the comment that excessive sugar in the bloodstream gets converted to body fat - which is indeed possible.

I'm not sure where the notion that fat comes from carbs is from, or where the notion that you can only gain weight by over eating carbs. I think some people are deciding to read things into post from extra dramatic effect?

Maybe the best thing to do would be to read all of the posts relating to this to get a clearer picture.

Basically, overeating anything will cause a person to gain fat.

Agreed. Although studies have shown that over eating protein can result in no weight gain (no loss either), but no weight gain!

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.

No I'm not backing it - as the first word in my post was agreed to the post above it. I was merely pointing out that a study had been done on protein consumption in a calorie surplus that showed no gain in weight. The study was based on fit males and females who were resitance training (so not your average joe) and probably not relevant to most on a SAD, but might be relevant to some on MFP.

Explain it to me like I'm four. How are "Overeating anything will cause a person to get fat" and "over eating protein can result in no weight gain (no loss either)" compatible concepts? I can undesertand if either one is true, or the other is true, or both are false, but I simply cannot wrap my head around how both concepts can be held as true at the same time. That said, you have - by my understanding of your agreement, above - agreed that both statements are true. Please, explain how this works.

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.

Yeah, it is a question of zealotry. And you really are not understanding the point I'm making due to what I would call your zealotry (perhaps not pro-sugar zealotry, but rather counter-anti-sugar zealotry).

You don't know what is sustainable for someone else. You don't know their medical history. And if someone says they're cutting out or down on sugar, they don't owe you any explanation as to why. They get to do it just because they want to. And it doesn't even matter if they're doing it because they're misinformed. You're not "Official Diet Truthteller of the World".

Sure, if someone is asking for advice - i.e. "I keep 'cheating' and going over my calories how do I stop?" - by all means help them out. But preaching to someone talking about what's working for them how sugar in an apple is not different than sugar in cake is no different than an anti-sugar zealot telling someone to cut out sugar because sugar baaaad {scary fingers}.

teaching sustainability and willpower is about learning based on moderation. That's what I'm talking about. Not going on a rant about zealotry or cheating or scare tactics. I've never claimed to be an official anything, but I've been on this site for a few years and helped quite a few people, as opposed to your newly-joined since February status and your obvious looking for any argument tactics. Believe what you want.

Because you can tell anything about my history, how many people I've helped or knowledge based on when I registered for a dieting website.

But, I'm glad that the fact that you've been here longer makes you feel good about yourself.

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 find that if I make sure to get enough protein (fish, lean meats, lentils, plain yogurt), and fill up on that plus salads, vegetables, and low GI fruits, I am stronger mentally and emotionally, and less susceptible to sugar binges. For me, sugar slip-ups occur during those moments of weakness when I've let myself get too hungry and am also tired, stressed, or upset.

Thanks for the info. I can relate FOR SURE on the whole sugar being the most addictive. I too have sugar issues and have gained back a good 10-15 lbs. because I let myself go the past few months. I was doing well, not eating a lot of baked goods and whatnot, but then somewhere along the way I threw it all out the window and thought "I got this", needless to say, I didn't. I've come to accept it's a trigger for me and I need to minimize the amount of sugar in my diet as much as possible. It shows on my body, probably more than other's, when I consume more sugary foods. I've gained a few inches in the belly and many of my pants don't fit anymore. I'm not about to go buy an entire wardrobe to accommodate my lack of will power.

Cutting back on sugar holds no potential dangers - in fact from a health point of view there is nothing negative about it.

Psychologically there are plenty of potential dangers of restrictive diets that demonize one food/ingredient/macro/etc....

Again before anyone cries - It is indeed just "potential" but I think people should be well aware of the POTENTIAL slippery slope that restrictive diets can lead too.

If it's not the case for you - good I dont care - Im just putting the info out there.

Not sure, why some people are so defensive about it though...

I never once claimed to be the arbiter of what is rational for other people.

No, but you set yourself up to be in that position.

I merely said that irrational food restrictions are a main characteristic of orthorexia nervosa (and binge eating/anorexia). That is simply a fact. If someone has a logical and reasonable reason for cutting out a wide swath of foods, they clearly wouldn't fall into that category.

They may be, but generally internet message boards are not conducive to these diagnoses. Further, you keep going back to "if they have irrational"... well, you wouldn't know that unless you interrogate their reasoning, which is what I mean by you've set yourself up as arbiter of what's rational for others. I find the whole idea that you think someone should justify their reasoning to you problematic to begin with.

I then went on to use an example that if the reason people have been cutting out sugar is because of information from Lustig or Joanne - then indeed they ARE being irrational. Regardless of their history and what is in their head - if their reasoning is "Lustig said, or Joanne said..." then they are being irrational. That would lack both reason and logic...thus irrational. I didn't invent the word.

Unless they start out sharing this (in which case, they're likely advocating, not just talking about their own experience), how would you know this unless you interrogated their reasoning? And who are you to do that? As I keep saying, it's one thing if they're asking for advice/help, but quite another to challenge someone who's not asking for it when they're just sharing what they do/what works for them.

And I see NO problem with sharing information on a message board that could potentially help someone. Whether they asked for it or not. If someone came in here on a Very Low calorie diet, or some crazy pill fueled diet that "worked for them" would you not expect people to speak up on the potential dangers? Why shouldn't the same hold true for restrictive diets?

I think a lot of it depends on how you do it. Sharing your opinion is different than saying someone who is just sharing that they focus on eating fruit instead of cakes and cookies "you know your body treats the sugar in that apple and the sugar in a piece of cake the same" (this is how I got into this thread in the first place). For one thing, that's not exactly true. Your body doesn't process an apple and a piece of cake the same. In isolation, yes, sugar is sugar, but an apple and cake are not the same to your body when you start looking at glucose and insulin levels. And this is important to some people, generally for medical reasons, but not always.

And the VLCD and pills comment is, in this case, a non sequitur. Yes of course, if someone is doing something harmful, then you should intervene, but we've already established that cutting sugar is not harmful. It's just not in the same category.

I am not working against any "fad" people. When I see a topic that I feel knowledgeable about - I will simply leave the information I feel confident in, and allow people to either ignore the info, or use it as a starting point for further investigation. I also never told anyone they were setting themselves up for failure - I merely pointed out information that i feel is not only true - but important to consider.

As I said, I think it matters how you do it. Simply contributing information you feel knowledgeable for people to use or ignore is very different than interrogating and challenging someone else's choices directly when they're not asking for your help/advice and they're not doing anything inherently harmful.

That's mental health, I would suggest that with will power most could cope.

If you have some studies to prove the potential physical danger it would be easier to believe. I'm sure I am not the only one unconvinced.

In regards to physical health there are no negatives.

Real talk man - lets just agree to disagree because this is maybe the third time I have engaged with you on the forums and each time its the same thing - where you can't follow the discussion...or you choose not to.

I repeatedly said psychologically. I even said there were no health detriments.

Maybe you aren't reading what I am writing, or maybe you don't care - but in either scenario I don't want to engage with you. Not a personal thing, it's just futile and I repeat the same **** over and over. Maybe take some time to reread what I posted instead of being in such a hurry to post.

BTW chalking up eating disorders to "will power" is probably offensive to some. Im not so sensitive but people who have dealt with them may be.

Rebalee - I never set myself up to be in that position. You are projecting your own feelings about me, instead of discussing my points. I am not trying to diagnose anyone.

I keep going back to "IF they have irrational..." because I can't know what their reasoning is. It is up to the people themselves to take a look at themselves and decide if they are being rational or not. I have never ever said people need to justify their reasoning to me. I don't care. I am just putting info out there.

And again I NEVER challenged anyone (outside of lustig and Joanne). Maybe you are getting me confused with someone else??? I simply saw people say that there is no health detriment to cutting out sugar, and replied that may be true, but there is potential for psychological damage.

I also have no idea what you are on about the cake vs fruit stuff. I didn't say that. The insulin stuff - again I don't care I didn't say it. And YOU said cutting sugar wasn't harmful. I pointed out reasons why it could be potentially harmful (psychologically) because I felt people should have a full look at the situation.

As I said, I think it matters how you do it. Simply contributing information you feel knowledgeable for people to use or ignore is very different than interrogating and challenging someone else's choices directly when they're not asking for your help/advice and they're not doing anything inherently harmful.

And I did it just like I said. I simply dropped my information as to why total sugar restriction can potentially lead to an unhealthy relationship with food. I didn't interrogate or challenge anyone. Yall can look up and read my posts.

EDIT: And my piece is said, Im not going to engage any further in this silly back and forth, where you try and tell me what I said and what I meant - when the posts above can totally speak for themselves. Have a great day.

Rebalee - I never set myself up to be in that position. You are projecting your own feelings about me, instead of discussing my points. I am not trying to diagnose anyone.

I keep going back to "IF they have irrational..." because I can't know what their reasoning is. It is up to the people themselves to take a look at themselves and decide if they are being rational or not. I have never ever said people need to justify their reasoning to me. I don't care. I am just putting info out there.

And again I NEVER challenged anyone (outside of lustig and Joanne). Maybe you are getting me confused with someone else??? I simply saw people say that there is no health detriment to cutting out sugar, and replied that may be true, but there is potential for psychological damage.

I also have no idea what you are on about the cake vs fruit stuff. I didn't say that. The insulin stuff - again I don't care I didn't say it. And YOU said cutting sugar wasn't harmful. I pointed out reasons why it could be potentially harmful (psychologically) because I felt people should have a full look at the situation.

As I said, I think it matters how you do it. Simply contributing information you feel knowledgeable for people to use or ignore is very different than interrogating and challenging someone else's choices directly when they're not asking for your help/advice and they're not doing anything inherently harmful.

And I did it just like I said. I simply dropped my information as to why total sugar restriction can potentially lead to an unhealthy relationship with food. I didn't interrogate or challenge anyone. Yall can look up and read my posts.

EDIT: And my piece is said, Im not going to engage any further in this silly back and forth, where you try and tell me what I said and what I meant - when the posts above can totally speak for themselves. Have a great day.

You jumped in the middle of a convo I was having with someone else, seemingly standing with them. So, if you didn't want to get into that particular argument and that wasn't your position, maybe you shouldn't have stepped into (quoted) that particular conversation?

Cutting back on sugar holds no potential dangers - in fact from a health point of view there is nothing negative about it.

Psychologically there are plenty of potential dangers of restrictive diets that demonize one food/ingredient/macro/etc....

Again before anyone cries - It is indeed just "potential" but I think people should be well aware of the POTENTIAL slippery slope that restrictive diets can lead too.

If it's not the case for you - good I dont care - Im just putting the info out there.

Not sure, why some people are so defensive about it though...

I feel your pain