Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!

ndj1979 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

None of the foods people binge on in this thread (that have been mentioned) get all (or even most) of their calories from sugar.

Maybe we missed a few: Custard stuffed eclairs, Peanut M&Ms, blueberry pie with whipped cream, Pizza with pepperoni, sausage, meatballs onions and peppers, linguine with clams, butter toffee with cashews, mint chocolate chip ice cream, Brigham's hot fudge, vanilla layer cake with lemon cream frosting, Godiva, Chinese pork fried rice, buttered toast with cinnamon, Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Hohos, Suzy Qs, Duck Rillette on French bread, crème caramel, kielbasa stuffed potato rolls, ravioli, Italian Chicken sandwich from Burger King, crispy onion rings, Gorton's breaded fish sticks, OreIda Crispers, etc.

Okay okay it's not sugar that makes every one of these divine foods worthy of a glutton party. There's plenty 'o wheat flour here. Plenty indeed. But don't they both break down as sugar. I mean, scientifically that is. Sorry, I can't find my peer reviewed citations.

I don't give myself a half a cup of M&Ms and say deal with it Newmeadow. Not interested. If I'm not eating a gallon sized plastic Halloween pumpkin tote full of candy and falling blissfully into a lovely sugar induced euphoric semi comatose state, I DON'T WANT IT.

It's all or NOTHING.

I suspect the point was that there's fat plus sugar or fat plus salt in the usual suspects.

Like I've pointed out, the main source of calories in a typical cookie (at least based on my recipe) is butter. The flour is second, yet people who usually go on about sugar being addictive frequently don't claim to binge on plain bread (although obviously some people do).

Your list tends to me to support this point.

It's often sometimes claimed by low carb advocates that people binge only on carbs, not fat or protein--the argument is made that one won't overeat if one sticks to low carb. I think this might be true for some people and that low carb can be a good strategy. It's absolutely not true for me. I might accidently overeat pasta because I misjudge portion size or get a restaurant meal and think it's super tasty (invariably mostly because of the sauce), but I was kind of surprised when I first heard people say they would "binge on" plain bread or cereal or pasta (I always assumed people overate bread because you get it in situations that make portion control difficult, like when hungry before a meal). On the other hand, I won't eat 'til I'm stuffed on anything really (seems unpleasant), but I can most certainly overconsume calories very easily with meat and I used to do it all the time with cheese.

I find lowering carbs to be a good strategy for me because it makes me more mindful and fits with how I prefer to eat, but not because it prevents overeating. (I think it may do that for some people who overeat due to perceived hunger or cravings.)

Yup, it isn't the sugar specifically that people think is addictive, it's the hedonistic mouth feel and taste of deliciously formulated refined carb treats....and yes, most people have no defense mechanism for this.......they turn into zombies, and saying that sugar is addictive, just to through off the pack hoping to get more treats.

so sugar will be the cause of the zombie apocalypse…? LOL

If you serve eclairs, beignets, brioche, et all, oh and twinkies you want to lock your doors...... but it's safe to leave sugar bowls around, zombies seem to think the taste is too one dimensional in their demented world of mow.

tigersword wrote: »

kyta32 wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

You do realize as I and Tigers pointed out sucrose is found in fruits? There is no excessive fixation on fructose. I do agree the issue is hyperpalatable foods, but as you already saw from one astute poster they laid blame totally on added sugars as what caused their binges

The OP has no point, as sugar has many uses then just a "quick energy fix", and many "sugar" laden foods are highly nutritious and packed with micros.

Yes, I do realize that you and Tigers have pointed out that sucrose is found in fruit.

I have no idea why the two of you are fixated on that point, but clearly you need closure, so here it is -- I saw that you wrote that and I believe you.

You are absolutely right -- many people are blaming added sugars in their food as what causes their binges.

Because in their perception, sugar does cause their binges. They eat a sweet food and before you know it, they are eating the entire house. They don't feel this way about lettuce, so it must be the sugar!

So what does cause their binges? Well who the hell knows -- we never get to the point of discussing that because we get caught up immediately in the fructose loop. heh heh fruit loops I made a joke right there!

The end result is that we get no where. The OP doesn't get help and the issue of binging isn't discussed in any complex or intelligent way.

The next time someone says they are addicted to sugar, just please don't start the tired old fructose subthread.

And don't just blame people for being lazy or weak-willed -- that's simplistic obstructionism. Human beings have a powerful built-in response to food -- it's called instinct! -- and for many people, that response is abnormal and needs some tweeking. For some people, the tweeking is as simple as understanding CICO, and for others, the tweeking needs to be medical intervention.

They may not be lazy or weak willed but certainly you could call them ignorant. If someone says they are addicted to sugar, they should know what sugar actually is, right? Again you're bringing up fructose when that never has anything to do with any of the "sugar addict" threads, why?

I thought her reference to fructose made perfect sense. It has everything to do with every thread on limiting added sugars.

How? Point to one thread where anyone brought up fructose as a counter to someone claiming sugar addiction. They don't exist.

Every thread on sugar addiction eventually falls back to "if it's sugar, why don't you binge on apples".

Apples contain fructose, glucose and sucrose. so again that's why her continual mention of fructose is silly

Apples also contain fiber and protein, slowing the glucose spike and making them more satisfying than something that is all sugar, and thus a binge is less likely. The apple is metabolized more slowly than something that has all its calories from sugar (sucrose, HFCS). Apples come naturally portion controlled (unlike a box of cookies), which makes it easier to realize when a serving has been eaten. Also, an apple has less sugar (10 grams only a couple of which are sucrose) than, say, a can of soda (41 grams for 340 ml of Pepsi, pretty much all sucrose), so there is less of a glucose spike and "sugar high". Apples have pectin that appears to help lower LDL cholesterol. Apples have vitamin C and polyphenolic compounts that fight free radicals (protect from cancer), trace minerals like magnesium, potassium and calcium, that are good for the body's aches and pains (among other things), and a host of B vitamins, which are neccessary for maintaining red blood cells and the nervous system. Apples are in no way an equivalent match to soda, or most sugary junk food when making a comparison as far as sucrose impact. Apples (and other fruits and vegetables) are a straw-man argument in this debate.

None of the foods people binge on in this thread (that have been mentioned) get all (or even most) of their calories from sugar. Therefore, your entire premise is a strawman.

First of all, in a 100 gram serving of apples, less than 1 gram of the 10 grams total of sugar is sucrose. You are not comparing sucrose to sucrose, very little of the sugar in apples is sucrose.

If you have been reading this thread, you will have read the accounts of many people who, like me, crave sugar. Even someone giving the example of saying no to the second cookie, or grabbing a handful of M&M was using sugar-based examples for bad eating habits. This thread is not just about binging (which is not where people get "most" of their calories, it is just a problem that can derail dieting and lead to added fat), it is also about managing the cravings from sugar-based foods, and the way processd sugar (especially large amounts of sucrose/HFCS/dextrose etc) interact with the body. To be fair, even though I defend fruit, when I eat a 1/2 a grapefruit (with 1 tbs trail mix), I get hungry again within an hour. I could probably pick a lower-sugar fruit to eat, or add more protein, and have an easier time staying in my calorie range. When I have protein powder with greek yogurt, I'm full for 4 hours (the 33 grams of protein eliminate the sugar spike from the lactose, and digests slowly, leading to long-term satisfaction).

People don't get most of their calories from sugar in general (I hope). It's the added calories on top of meeting their macros (most of their calories) that lead to the weight gain. A handful of M&Ms (42 g serving, 240 calories/serving 120 of which were sugar), on top of maintenance calories are only 12% of daily maintenance calories, a small portion of total calories eaten. 250 calories above maintenance every day can lead to 1/2 pound gained per week. Having an apple on hand to eat instead (50 calories for 100 g serving, 40 sugar calories, less than 4 of which come from sucrose) will be physically more filling, have a smaller calorie surplus, and may lead to eating less at dinner, resolving that surplus, as the fiber in the apple slows the digestive process, leaving her filled for longer than the M&Ms would. Also, the fructose in the apple is very sweet, making it harder to over-eat. This is why comparing sucrose-heavy snacks to whole fruits and saying "but you are eating sugar anyways" is a straw argument. They aren't comparable.

I also think some of sugar cravings are because our body wants some of the nutrients in fruit, and the conditioned association is with the sweet of the fruit. If we meet the micronutrient need, we might not want the sweet as much (also if we got enough sleep, enough water, had better diets, and generally took care of ourselves better.) If we eat calorie-dense, nutrient poor alternatives, our need for micronutrients is not met, and cravings continue.

Tigger, I know you want to help, and feel frustrated when your message isn't getting through. Please consider that using terms like "ignorant" (even if they used it first), is alienating. And for those bandying "will power" around, well, people can have trigger words as well as trigger foods. The recomp journey can look very different from a fat loss journey (imaging a cut lasting over a year to get an idea of the will power already used by some of the people that you are accusing of having none). Also, please consider that other people may succeed in ways that don't work for you. Discounting the experiences of others and shutting them down will not help get your message across. We are on MFP partially to benefit from the experiences of other people on similar, but not identical journeys. The forums are a place to find our tools to weight loss. It's good to put more out there, so people have more choices, but what tools they chose to use, and what works best for them, is something they will discover for themselves. Recognize your success, share it, and appreciate the successes of others, even when they look different from yours.

ndj1979 wrote: »

jgnatca wrote: »

so people who were showed chocolate chip cookies and then forced to eat radishes were pissed off? this is somehow ground breaking..? - ndj

Maybe all that super-exercised willpower of yours is all used up...no patience to finish the article.

The people who successfully resisted the chocolate were then given a complex problem to solve. Their ability to solve the problem was compromised. All their self-control had been exhausted staring at the chocolate chip cookies.

yes, I read that part too ..

I just am not surprised the people were pissed about having to eat radishes over chocolate chip cookies...

It's actually a fairly extensive line of research now, look up ego depletion if you are interested. Like I said, I think the cookie/radish experiment was problematic, but they have studied with this with lots of different things and found that willpower (or more accurately, executive function) does seem to be a limited resource - although one that can be relied on more for some people than others, and may be possible to enhance over time.

When I read about people who have maintained a substantial weight loss the unifying aspect does not seem so much to be willpower as determination and a shift in how they see themselves and food such that it really isn't a constant battle of wills but more the sense that this is the new way that I live my life.

jgnatca wrote: »

The people who successfully resisted the chocolate were then given a complex problem to solve. Their ability to solve the problem was compromised. All their self-control had been exhausted staring at the chocolate chip cookies.

Oops.

baconslave wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

None of the foods people binge on in this thread (that have been mentioned) get all (or even most) of their calories from sugar.

Maybe we missed a few: Custard stuffed eclairs, Peanut M&Ms, blueberry pie with whipped cream, Pizza with pepperoni, sausage, meatballs onions and peppers, linguine with clams, butter toffee with cashews, mint chocolate chip ice cream, Brigham's hot fudge, vanilla layer cake with lemon cream frosting, Godiva, Chinese pork fried rice, buttered toast with cinnamon, Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Hohos, Suzy Qs, Duck Rillette on French bread, crème caramel, kielbasa stuffed potato rolls, ravioli, Italian Chicken sandwich from Burger King, crispy onion rings, Gorton's breaded fish sticks, OreIda Crispers, etc.

Okay okay it's not sugar that makes every one of these divine foods worthy of a glutton party. There's plenty 'o wheat flour here. Plenty indeed. But don't they both break down as sugar. I mean, scientifically that is. Sorry, I can't find my peer reviewed citations.

I don't give myself a half a cup of M&Ms and say deal with it Newmeadow. Not interested. If I'm not eating a gallon sized plastic Halloween pumpkin tote full of candy and falling blissfully into a lovely sugar induced euphoric semi comatose state, I DON'T WANT IT.

It's all or NOTHING.

I suspect the point was that there's fat plus sugar or fat plus salt in the usual suspects.

Like I've pointed out, the main source of calories in a typical cookie (at least based on my recipe) is butter. The flour is second, yet people who usually go on about sugar being addictive frequently don't claim to binge on plain bread (although obviously some people do).

Your list tends to me to support this point.

It's often sometimes claimed by low carb advocates that people binge only on carbs, not fat or protein--the argument is made that one won't overeat if one sticks to low carb. I think this might be true for some people and that low carb can be a good strategy. It's absolutely not true for me. I might accidently overeat pasta because I misjudge portion size or get a restaurant meal and think it's super tasty (invariably mostly because of the sauce), but I was kind of surprised when I first heard people say they would "binge on" plain bread or cereal or pasta (I always assumed people overate bread because you get it in situations that make portion control difficult, like when hungry before a meal). On the other hand, I won't eat 'til I'm stuffed on anything really (seems unpleasant), but I can most certainly overconsume calories very easily with meat and I used to do it all the time with cheese.

I find lowering carbs to be a good strategy for me because it makes me more mindful and fits with how I prefer to eat, but not because it prevents overeating. (I think it may do that for some people who overeat due to perceived hunger or cravings.)

I really think that this is the crux of the thing. Which explains why many people don't have trouble with the sugar in fruit. Or don't just binge on butter sticks. It's the hyperpalatability of the combinations of sugar and fat, and salt and fat, that causes the issues.

I don't binge apples. But I will eat a whole lot of them if they are covered in peanut butter.
And chocolates and cookies are sugar plus fat.

My hubby's aunt doesn't binge sweets. She binges chips. Fat plus salt. Hubs, on his occasional few-and-far-between snacks are fat and salt as well.

So it isn't the sugar per se. It's the sugar and fat coupled together. And it's the response to palatability (taste). Hmmm...something to think about.

I think it's probably both, hyperpalateability definitely seems to have effects on overeating, but given the prevalence of undiagnosed insulin resistance, I think specifically eating patterns that result in glucose spikes will be problematic in those people.

Which of course is another reason why the sugar in fruit is often not problematic - there is a low glycemic load.

girlviernes wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

jgnatca wrote: »

so people who were showed chocolate chip cookies and then forced to eat radishes were pissed off? this is somehow ground breaking..? - ndj

Maybe all that super-exercised willpower of yours is all used up...no patience to finish the article.

The people who successfully resisted the chocolate were then given a complex problem to solve. Their ability to solve the problem was compromised. All their self-control had been exhausted staring at the chocolate chip cookies.

yes, I read that part too ..

I just am not surprised the people were pissed about having to eat radishes over chocolate chip cookies...

It's actually a fairly extensive line of research now, look up ego depletion if you are interested. Like I said, I think the cookie/radish experiment was problematic, but they have studied with this with lots of different things and found that willpower (or more accurately, executive function) does seem to be a limited resource - although one that can be relied on more for some people than others, and may be possible to enhance over time.

When I read about people who have maintained a substantial weight loss the unifying aspect does not seem to much to be willpower as determination and a shift in how they see themselves and food such that it really isn't a constant battle of wills but more the sense that this is the new way that I live my life.

^This

girlviernes wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

It's actually a fairly extensive line of research now, look up ego depletion if you are interested. Like I said, I think the cookie/radish experiment was problematic, but they have studied with this with lots of different things and found that willpower (or more accurately, executive function) does seem to be a limited resource - although one that can be relied on more for some people than others, and may be possible to enhance over time.

When I read about people who have maintained a substantial weight loss the unifying aspect does not seem so much to be willpower as determination and a shift in how they see themselves and food such that it really isn't a constant battle of wills but more the sense that this is the new way that I live my life.

Love you, girl. Yes, I would say my relationship with food has shifted substantially.