Sugar addict! But in a "good" way...

Sugar is not the enemy. I get angry with these trends in food and 'dieting'. For 5 years fats are bad, for 5 years carbs are bad etc etc. We all need a balanced life!!! For most healthy people (I am aware there are people with medical conditions PCOS, Diabetes etc) sugar can help with serotinin levels in our body. Low levels of this can cause depression, anxiety, addiction issues etc. It sounds like you are getting your sugars from good healthy unprocessed sources for the most part so there is no harm in it. Don't make it complicated and don't let anyone tell you an apple is bad for you!!

Honestly, I wish people would use the search function instead of starting new threads. I'm so sick of seeing people fear mongering and acting like sugar is the devil. Why not just enjoy life? Do you have diabetes? If not, then sugar from fruit is not going to hurt you. People like to demonize processed foods and added sugar, but losing these fifty pounds without them would have made life miserable. If you like it, eat it, and don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't.

Evidence is growing, that excess blood glucose and sugar is toxic, implicated in systemic inflammation, autoimmune diseases, obesity, diabetes, prediabetes, dementia.

Meat is how we got these big human brains in the first place. We didn't get to the moon by eating apples.

Got any data to support this?

lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.

None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?

Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.

Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?

And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?

Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?

I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.

The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.

Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?

The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.

This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.

The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.

Go back and read the claim we are discussing. It's specifically referencing fruit. The comparison is right on.

Beyond that, saying you don't need a specific food is simply not a valid argument for the proposition that it's bad for you. If you are short on nutrients or low on calories it would be a place to cut, yes, and people could rationally choose not to eat it for such reasons or others, but that's not what is being claimed here (or usually) with the "you don't need it" assertion.

Look around at the average American. We're on average short on nutrients and definitely in need of cutting calories. Therefore, I agree, sugar is the place to start. Not saying all sugar for everyone must go, especially when it comes to things like fruit, but in general, it's a good thing to cut down on.

Yes, if someone is overweight, that's a good thing to look at. It has nothing to do with the claim we were actually discussing, which was that all sugar is bad sugar. Nor does it have anything to do with the silly generalization that if something is not required it's bad for you. Whether it's bad for you or not so often depends on context. On MFP, you can't really claim that sugar--let alone sugar from fruit, again, the topic of this thread--is bad because you might be overeating or not getting enough nutrients, since people are tracking their diets and know if they are overeating or likely short on nutrients. Like I maintain a deficit and eat lots of vegetables, enough protein, etc, and even--gasp--fruit and yet have room for some added sugar. To say the latter is unhealthy because other people eat lots of added sugar AND too many calories really isn't convincing. Certainly I limit added sugar because that's part of eating a balanced diet and sticking to a calorie limit.

That the sugar fear is out of hand is demonstrated beautifully by this thread by some saying that the OP needs to cut out the sugar in fruit and others assuming that she'd only eat lots of fruits because of some kind of sugar-driven cravings. Wacky.

Yes, if someone is overweight, that's a good thing to look at.

This is a weight loss site, for the most part, anyway. I'm not trying to take it to extremes. I didn't say fruit sugar was the devil or anything of the sort (although personally I don't like to eat it in isolation from other foods because it will often make me feel ill or hungry when I do). Just saying calories that lack nutritional value are the first things that should go when someone needs to lose weight.

To be fair, that should equally apply to the rum I had tonight, too!

Or, how about portion control? My weight problem came not from what I ate, but how much I ate. Not everyone got fat from eating sweets; some, like myself, just need to learn moderation, and that can be difficult when there's a hoard of people telling them to stop eating something entirely.

lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.

None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?

Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.

Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?

And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?

Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?

I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.

The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.

Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?

The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.

This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.

The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.

Go back and read the claim we are discussing. It's specifically referencing fruit. The comparison is right on.

Beyond that, saying you don't need a specific food is simply not a valid argument for the proposition that it's bad for you. If you are short on nutrients or low on calories it would be a place to cut, yes, and people could rationally choose not to eat it for such reasons or others, but that's not what is being claimed here (or usually) with the "you don't need it" assertion.

Look around at the average American. We're on average short on nutrients and definitely in need of cutting calories. Therefore, I agree, sugar is the place to start. Not saying all sugar for everyone must go, especially when it comes to things like fruit, but in general, it's a good thing to cut down on.

Please teach me how to spot folks who are short on nutrients on sight. I must learn this technique.

The argument that 'we don't need sugar. . . oh, except carbs' is seriously flawed, as sugar is a carb, and because the body breaks down foods into sugar in order to function.

Please teach me how to spot folks who are short on nutrients on sight. I must learn this technique.

The argument that 'we don't need sugar. . . oh, except carbs' is seriously flawed, as sugar is a carb, and because the body breaks down foods into sugar in order to function.

What many of us don't need to do is to consume calories with no nutritional value. Because we don't have the calories to spare. For example, I would have been better off eating something with protein and calcium in it last night than have the alcohol. I was short on both of those last night. If I'd had cookies, it would have been the same problem.

And when I was fat I almost never met my RDA on most nutrients. Why? Because most of my diet was sugar, specifically soda. And doctors are seeing cases of vitamin deficiencies in obese people.

So you drank too many sodas, which put you in a caloric excess and you gained weight. Therefore the problem with all overweight people have is consuming too much sugar.

:huh:

If you're particularly overweight and/or unhealthy, then you may want to be a little careful with your sugar intake.
Fibre in fruit is one way to blunt blood sugar spikes. Another is to eat your sugar with some fat and/or protein, as most people probably will.
Fructose, commonly associated with fruit, is more likely to be 'turned in to fat' than commonly used 'processed' sugars, which are more likely to be used to replenish muscle glycogen.

But regardless of all that, CICO and getting yourself to a good weight/level of fitness are likely to make a much difference than worrying about sugar.

i have fruit about three times a day . my sugar cravings dropped a lot when i stopped eating stuff like cookies , candy , ice cream ect .. took a while because out of habit i was used to having it .. but learned to enjoy fruit .. its like having a dessert but healthier .. sometimes i take blueberries and drizzle melted raw honey on it ... mmmmm mmmm good

What you call a bad habit, I call eating the things I love and enjoying life.

^

While the sugar in fruit will react with your body the same way it would from another source, you are getting a lot of good things out of fruit as well such as vitamins, minerals and fiber. Fruit is "good" in the sense that it is not empty calories the way a few cookies might be. Enjoying those cookies from time to time is perfectly fine, the way one might enjoy a good glass of wine or a cocktail.

The problem nutritionally is when you replace the healthier alternatives that have nutritional value, such as fruit, every day with cookies. Basically if you'd rather get your sugar fix than all the vitamins and minerals you need to be healthy, you have a problem with food. The reason there are so many obese people right now is because people actually believe that fattening food = happiness and love.