Help with Sugar Withdrawals
Replies
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
We also need to understand that the 'carbs aren't required advice' has the potential to be very dangerous. Maybe you should have a read about some of the animal studies they're doing on pregnant rodents. For obvious reasons, they can't do similar human studies.GaleHawkins wrote: »LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Chief_Rocka wrote: »Your body makes the sugar it needs from complex carbs
Or protein if you are eating low carb. Carbs are not required by the human body and without carbs or <100 grams daily you will go into nutritional ketosis. Cutting out all forms of sugar may mean you are in a state of ketosis now.
That can make you feel like you have the flu for a few days or longer but then you become keto adapted and are off sugar but with more energy typically.
um, yes it does...lol...
LiveLaughLoveEat1 if my statement was not true I would not have made the statement initially. I post with my real name to encourage myself to be helpful when on the web. I will not with intent post false information.
Carbs are optionally as in "Not Essentially Required" for human life.
Please stop posting otherwise.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.full
http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/2717/there-essential-carbohydrates
http://graemethomasonline.com/carbohydrate-daily-requirements/ This link is a good read about carbs. Carbs can be nice but they are not required and in excess they can be harmful to live.
Folks we need to understand diet requirements and how food works inside our bodies if we are going to increase the success of Americans dieting to greater than the current 10% success rate of losing and keep the weight off for the rest of one's life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656724
"The increasing use of the ketogenic diet (KD), particularly by women of child-bearing age, raises a question about its suitability during gestation. To date, no studies have thoroughly investigated the direct implications of a gestational ketogenic diet on embryonic development.
A ketogenic diet during gestation results in alterations in embryonic organ growth. Such alterations may be associated with organ dysfunction and potentially behavioral changes in postnatal life."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24168053
"A gestational ketogenic diet deleteriously affects maternal fertility and increases susceptibility to fatal ketoacidosis during lactation. Prenatal and early postnatal exposure to a ketogenic diet also results in significant alterations to neonatal brain structure, and results in retarded physiological growth. These alterations could be accompanied by functional and behavioural changes in later postnatal life."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3772523
"All pups born to zero-glucose dams died by d 4. Pup survival to d 7 was 48% at 4% glucose and 84% at 12% glucose. The data demonstrate that maternal dietary carbohydrate is required for fetal growth, normal parturition and postnatal survival of rat pups. The results indicate that late gestation, parturition and the neonatal period may be especially vulnerable to maternal carbohydrate deprivation"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2398413
"Evidence for a critical period during late gestation when maternal dietary carbohydrate is essential for survival of newborn rats"
This is very interesting. Thank you for posting.
I know many women who have had full term healthy babies while eating a low carb diet (but not what is considered very low carb/low enough for ketosis). Obviously pregnancy has different nutritional requirements for the developing fetus.
I'm very interested in epigenetics and one of the best known examples of how dietary restriction during pregnancy impacts the foetus is the "Dutch Hunger Winter" studies.
This paper talks about the genetics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579375/
"Here we show that individuals who were prenatally exposed to famine during the Dutch Hunger Winter in 1944–45 had, 6 decades later, less DNA methylation of the imprinted IGF2 gene compared with their unexposed, same-sex siblings. The association was specific for periconceptional exposure, reinforcing that very early mammalian development is a crucial period for establishing and maintaining epigenetic marks. These data are the first to contribute empirical support for the hypothesis that early-life environmental conditions can cause epigenetic changes in humans that persist throughout life."
This paper talks about the effect
www.pnas.org/content/107/39/16757.full.pdf
"the Dutch Hunger Winter study, from which results were first published in 1976, provides an almost perfectly designed, although tragic, human experiment in the effects of intrauterine deprivation on subsequent adult health. This study has provided crucial support and fundamental insights for the growing field of the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD). One of the important observations from the Dutch Hunger Winter Study was that intrauterine exposures that have long- lasting consequences for adult health do not necessarily result in altered birth weight."
I realise that it's an extreme example, but extreme carb restriction seems to be the big thing at the moment and I've read several times on the forums that "carbs aren't essential to humans". I think it's important to acknowledge that it could be risky during pregnancy. An apparently healthy birth doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been an epigenetic effect that predisposes to disease later. Also, some women don't realise that they're pregnant for some time.
I'll definitely have to look further into that. Thanks again.
I either have to restrict my carbs to 20 per day or take a carb blocker, such as acarbose, or else my blood glucose drops below the normal ranges multiple times a day. Luckily my pancreas isnt as over reactive while I'm pregnant. Why..no one knows. I have a cousin with celiacs who can eat wheat while pregnant.
I'll definitely have to figure something out if I ever decide to conceive again. This is very valuable information to me.0 -
LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
We also need to understand that the 'carbs aren't required advice' has the potential to be very dangerous. Maybe you should have a read about some of the animal studies they're doing on pregnant rodents. For obvious reasons, they can't do similar human studies.GaleHawkins wrote: »LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Chief_Rocka wrote: »Your body makes the sugar it needs from complex carbs
Or protein if you are eating low carb. Carbs are not required by the human body and without carbs or <100 grams daily you will go into nutritional ketosis. Cutting out all forms of sugar may mean you are in a state of ketosis now.
That can make you feel like you have the flu for a few days or longer but then you become keto adapted and are off sugar but with more energy typically.
um, yes it does...lol...
LiveLaughLoveEat1 if my statement was not true I would not have made the statement initially. I post with my real name to encourage myself to be helpful when on the web. I will not with intent post false information.
Carbs are optionally as in "Not Essentially Required" for human life.
Please stop posting otherwise.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.full
http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/2717/there-essential-carbohydrates
http://graemethomasonline.com/carbohydrate-daily-requirements/ This link is a good read about carbs. Carbs can be nice but they are not required and in excess they can be harmful to live.
Folks we need to understand diet requirements and how food works inside our bodies if we are going to increase the success of Americans dieting to greater than the current 10% success rate of losing and keep the weight off for the rest of one's life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656724
"The increasing use of the ketogenic diet (KD), particularly by women of child-bearing age, raises a question about its suitability during gestation. To date, no studies have thoroughly investigated the direct implications of a gestational ketogenic diet on embryonic development.
A ketogenic diet during gestation results in alterations in embryonic organ growth. Such alterations may be associated with organ dysfunction and potentially behavioral changes in postnatal life."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24168053
"A gestational ketogenic diet deleteriously affects maternal fertility and increases susceptibility to fatal ketoacidosis during lactation. Prenatal and early postnatal exposure to a ketogenic diet also results in significant alterations to neonatal brain structure, and results in retarded physiological growth. These alterations could be accompanied by functional and behavioural changes in later postnatal life."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3772523
"All pups born to zero-glucose dams died by d 4. Pup survival to d 7 was 48% at 4% glucose and 84% at 12% glucose. The data demonstrate that maternal dietary carbohydrate is required for fetal growth, normal parturition and postnatal survival of rat pups. The results indicate that late gestation, parturition and the neonatal period may be especially vulnerable to maternal carbohydrate deprivation"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2398413
"Evidence for a critical period during late gestation when maternal dietary carbohydrate is essential for survival of newborn rats"
This is very interesting. Thank you for posting.
I know many women who have had full term healthy babies while eating a low carb diet (but not what is considered very low carb/low enough for ketosis). Obviously pregnancy has different nutritional requirements for the developing fetus.
I'm very interested in epigenetics and one of the best known examples of how dietary restriction during pregnancy impacts the foetus is the "Dutch Hunger Winter" studies.
This paper talks about the genetics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579375/
"Here we show that individuals who were prenatally exposed to famine during the Dutch Hunger Winter in 1944–45 had, 6 decades later, less DNA methylation of the imprinted IGF2 gene compared with their unexposed, same-sex siblings. The association was specific for periconceptional exposure, reinforcing that very early mammalian development is a crucial period for establishing and maintaining epigenetic marks. These data are the first to contribute empirical support for the hypothesis that early-life environmental conditions can cause epigenetic changes in humans that persist throughout life."
This paper talks about the effect
www.pnas.org/content/107/39/16757.full.pdf
"the Dutch Hunger Winter study, from which results were first published in 1976, provides an almost perfectly designed, although tragic, human experiment in the effects of intrauterine deprivation on subsequent adult health. This study has provided crucial support and fundamental insights for the growing field of the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD). One of the important observations from the Dutch Hunger Winter Study was that intrauterine exposures that have long- lasting consequences for adult health do not necessarily result in altered birth weight."
I realise that it's an extreme example, but extreme carb restriction seems to be the big thing at the moment and I've read several times on the forums that "carbs aren't essential to humans". I think it's important to acknowledge that it could be risky during pregnancy. An apparently healthy birth doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been an epigenetic effect that predisposes to disease later. Also, some women don't realise that they're pregnant for some time.
I'll definitely have to look further into that. Thanks again.
I either have to restrict my carbs to 20 per day or take a carb blocker, such as acarbose, or else my blood glucose drops below the normal ranges multiple times a day. Luckily my pancreas isnt as over reactive while I'm pregnant. Why..no one knows. I have a cousin with celiacs who can eat wheat while pregnant.
I'll definitely have to figure something out if I ever decide to conceive again. This is very valuable information to me.
may I suggest restricting your carb intake. I doubt very seriously the carb blockers actually work.
Have you had experience? I'm already restricting my carb intake, thanks. For the record, acarbose does work for me. It's not like the diet pills advertised as carb blockers. It's prescription. It slows the digestion of carbs and was very effective at keeping my glucose levels within a normal range. It's usually prescribed for type 2 diabetics but is also used to treat reactive hypoglycemia. I chose to lower my carb intake and go off of the acarbose because it was easier not because it didn't work. Even before going to 20 g a day I was still eating what is considered to be on the low side of carb intake. Any higher than that and I would need to use my medication.
I've been dealing with rh for over 11 years. So, I know what works for me and what doesn't. I doubt very seriously that you should be handing out dietary or medicinal advice on something you obviously know little about. The difference acarbose has made in my quality of life is amazing.
I find it ridiculous that you can make such a statement to a complete stranger on the Internet.-1 -
LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »
Good job putting a link up for Web MD. Did you even read my post or.. more importantly..the article you threw up? I specified that what I took was not the same as the diet pill carb blockers on the market and also stated that it was a prescription drug.
The first part of that site you posted says: "When you’re trying to shed pounds and the scale isn’t moving in the right direction, it can be tempting to want to try something else, like a no-prescription weight loss supplement."
While I am trying to lose weight (through exercise) my dietary choices and medication are specifically adjusted for my medical needs and not for weigh loss. The only part of my diet adjusted for weight loss is caloric amount.
It also states: "Some starch blockers need a prescription. They are called acarbose (Precose), and miglitol (Glyset). These are used as treatments for blood sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes." Which is exactly what I said about it..except for the fact that I added that it can be used to treat reactive hypoglycemia, as well.
Again, it's asinine that you're making suggestions about medication that you obviously know nothing about (aside from an article, you might have read, that you weren't even using correctly to make a point I still don't see).
If you don't even have the slightest clue..don't ever tell someone their medication won't work. For all you know, I could be a 13 year old diabetic who takes information on mfp seriously; especially coming from someone like you.. who keeps laughing at your perceived stupidity of the others in this thread. Because we all know a lot of kids mistake attitudes like that for intelligence rather than sheer ignorance.-1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I was about to tear you apart for this, but then I looked up some things, and apparently this is true. (source available on request) However the information said that the effects of long term extreme carbohydrate restriction have not been studied. It would be close to impossible to live on zero carbohydrate, I personally don't believe in sugar "addiction" or withdrawal. No science to back that up. All in the sufferer's head.GaleHawkins wrote: »Carbs are not required by the human body
Thank marlovs. Even with my background we were thought Carbs were required the best I remember so it was a shock to me they are not essential to life.
As I posted there is no way one can live without getting Carbs in their diet. We need about 130 grams I have read to just live but if one was eating enough protein and fat that would not be a problem. Yes there is no such thing as a NO Carb diet. I am trying to hold my to 20 grams a day currently because I eat out a lot and know sugar gets added even to meats especially if that are marinated it seems based on the results of my breath analyzer read out after some meals.
I know of no reason one would not want to eat some carbs. All I posted was that carbs are not required for life to try to help some understand leaving off carbs will not KILL one.
On sugar there is some lab data that indicates sugar may be physically addicting but at this point in time I have not found any data that clearly states where sugar is or is not physically addicting or not. I mark it as Unknown today.
The is no question in my mind I had a sugar craving from hell but it may have just be a psychological addiction but it seemed real.
marlovs I pledge to you and the rest I will never knowing post false info. I post under my real name because I have nothing to hid and those who wish can learn more about me then I even remember.
We have some on here doing grave harm potentially to those who go to web forms for info blindly. As one with a science background I can usually tell bogus info. One sign is they never use any science related articles and they post anonymously. Currently I am evaluating the validity of visiting this site because of people like LLLE and others that are hell bent on posting false info. Personal name calling attacks are a dead giveaway of a fraud in progress be it in the forum or by private messages.
Again thanks and I must say I have been impressed with many posting in a sincere way just to be ripped apart by people who are clueless. What they did to the young lady from Australia a few days ago comes to my mind.
Can you explain the bolded parts? They sort of, well, conflict with each other.
0 -
LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »
Good job putting a link up for Web MD. Did you even read my post or.. more importantly..the article you threw up? I specified that what I took was not the same as the diet pill carb blockers on the market and also stated that it was a prescription drug.
The first part of that site you posted says: "When you’re trying to shed pounds and the scale isn’t moving in the right direction, it can be tempting to want to try something else, like a no-prescription weight loss supplement."
While I am trying to lose weight (through exercise) my dietary choices and medication are specifically adjusted for my medical needs and not for weigh loss. The only part of my diet adjusted for weight loss is caloric amount.
It also states: "Some starch blockers need a prescription. They are called acarbose (Precose), and miglitol (Glyset). These are used as treatments for blood sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes." Which is exactly what I said about it..except for the fact that I added that it can be used to treat reactive hypoglycemia, as well.
Again, it's asinine that you're making suggestions about medication that you obviously know nothing about (aside from an article, you might have read, that you weren't even using correctly to make a point I still don't see).
If you don't even have the slightest clue..don't ever tell someone their medication won't work. For all you know, I could be a 13 year old diabetic who takes information on mfp seriously; especially coming from someone like you.. who keeps laughing at your perceived stupidity of the others in this thread. Because we all know a lot of kids mistake attitudes like that for intelligence rather than sheer ignorance.
if you were 13 years old, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE...
Yeah..as if there aren't kids in the world who do things they're told they can't. I saw a 15 year old on here yesterday. There are some adults working with lower mentalities that might also buy into what others say on here without thinking twice.
Regardless, your suggestion was unnecessary. Your posting of that article made it even more absurd. If you don't have the knowledge, don't give advice.-2 -
People saying sugar isn't addictive...all i can say in that regard is, cocaine has been proven to not be physically addictive, but people perceive crack as being addictive, and it's the exact same thing as cocaine, which leaves the option of mental addiction. Among many other things that are considered addictive when they aren't considered addictive physically. So semantics aside...
I agree with the people who have said that you'll be okay if you can ride it out for a few days. I didn't crave sugar nearly as much after a week without it. I'm much more able to control my intake now, although I've noticed that when i eat junk, i often want more junk, lol-1 -
Annnnnnnnnnnd......Crack cocaine comparison again. ^^^
Not like everyone else uses that comparison, thanks. A little bit of reading comprehension is in order if what you got from my post was " sugar is addictive like crack!" because what i ACTUALLY said was, crack is not physically addictive, lololololol
ETA not in those exact words, obviously, however i said that cocaine is not physically addictive, therefore crack cannot be physically addictive.
The parts of the brain that activate blah blah blah has entirely to do with pleasure centers activating, and big deal to that when tons of things activate those exact same centers.-1 -
Did that really get flagged as "abuse?" lolololol what exactly about that post was abusive? How utterly typical.-2
-
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »Did that really get flagged as "abuse?" lolololol what exactly about that post was abusive? How utterly typical.
Someone flag happy is stalking this feed. Disagreement is all you need to get an abuse flag in here. Haha0 -
OP, how are you feeling today? What was the reason you stopped eating sugar?
There was some good advice at the very beginning of this thing. I hope some of it helped.
What do your macros look like now without it? I found that it was easier on me if i upped my fat when I decreased sugar. It helped with the cravings tremendously.0 -
Thanks for the replies. I was only looking for advice on what has worked for others. Sorry...I didn't mean to start an argument.
0 -
sclevenger1 wrote: »Thanks for the replies. I was only looking for advice on what has worked for others. Sorry...I didn't mean to start an argument.
Awe. No need to apologize. It's not your fault. If you mention cutting any food on mfp, you can expect some bickering in the general forums. Lots of misinformation and difference of opinions on what works around here.
I hope you're feeling better today. If your fat macros are looking kind of low, I like to whip 2 cups of Whipping cream and 1 sugar free pudding mix together for a sweet but sugar free treat. I usually split it up into 4-8 servings.0 -
sclevenger1 wrote: »Thanks for the replies. I was only looking for advice on what has worked for others. Sorry...I didn't mean to start an argument.
Heh, definitely not your fault. Sugar is a heated subject around here sometimes, but your post was fine.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Blueseraphchaos wrote: »People saying sugar isn't addictive...all i can say in that regard is, cocaine has been proven to not be physically addictive, but people perceive crack as being addictive, and it's the exact same thing as cocaine, which leaves the option of mental addiction. Among many other things that are considered addictive when they aren't considered addictive physically. So semantics aside...
I agree with the people who have said that you'll be okay if you can ride it out for a few days. I didn't crave sugar nearly as much after a week without it. I'm much more able to control my intake now, although I've noticed that when i eat junk, i often want more junk, lol
I think you need to really understand what substance abuse means, and the difference between substance and behavioural addiction.
I know what the difference is...lack of critical thinking here baffles me. I'm talking specifically about behavioral addiction, which would be what addiction to crack, cocaine, and sugar all technically are. But i give up, i knew there was a reason i stayed away from these forums.
And there's definitely nothing wrong with wanting to cut sugar, i did it for awhile and it's definitely easier to manage cravings after your basically detoxed from it...good luck, op.-1 -
sclevenger1 wrote: »Thanks for the replies. I was only looking for advice on what has worked for others. Sorry...I didn't mean to start an argument.
You did not start the argument. I think these people have a problem with each other from other threads.. I do not have experience with your topic, because I do not restrict anything in my diet. I only try to pay attention to my calorie #'s and macros (F/P/C). I would do as other suggested and maybe try fruits and veggies.0 -
I loved, loved, loved sugar...still do! When I need a "fix" I eat a tablespoon of honey. It is so sweet and only 60 calories. Good luck to you!0
-
I have an issue with people attributing things to me that i didn't say. I am so glad i have a job and a family and yesterday is the first time I've had time to linger on the forums in forever. I have enjoyed the ridiculous private messages with disparaging comments and absolutely zero intelligent conversation in them, and I'm glad my fat *kitten* doesn't have time to do the same. Don't worry, as your ^^ journey continues, you'll be less likely to come on here, attempt to slam ppl, and then just start hitting the flag button with your tail between your legs when someone tells you you're wrong.
Anyway, my bad, carry on.-2 -
Gradual is the way to go if you are getting this sick! Try to cut it out at breakfast or at night. The next week, cut it out with snacks. The next week cut it out with drinks. Slowly, you will wean yourself off it, good luck!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions