How sugar affects me
Replies
-
Gizziemoto wrote: »I am giving up refined sugars. Bye bye Starbucks frapps! That was 3 weeks ago. I cannot drink them anymore too sweet and I eat fruit instead. Only thing I learned was too much refined sugar makes me ill and I like apples more. Oh not as bloated but no idea why.
this makes no sense, as your body does not know the difference between the sugar in the frappe and the sugar in the apple. You might have a sensitivity to the milk in the frappe, perhaps.
Two cents from me: Your body may not know the difference, but it may be that your taste buds come to: during busy season at our office, we had a delivery of Dunkin Donuts for breakfast. Which I have always liked, especially the chocolate ones (of course!). So the night before, I adjusted my meals so I could fit a chocolate donut as breakfast. I had not had such a carby-sugary-yummy, nutritionally-wasteful breakfast for a long time, and I was looking forward to it.
Imagine my surprise and disappointment when, as I let it go down, I tasted a kind of plastic, I dunno, "fake" aftertaste which I had never tasted before. I managed half of it, tossed the rest, and got a dark-chocolate bar (Lindth, I *think*) that evening.
I found it an interesting experience.
0 -
Gizziemoto wrote: »I am giving up refined sugars. Bye bye Starbucks frapps! That was 3 weeks ago. I cannot drink them anymore too sweet and I eat fruit instead. Only thing I learned was too much refined sugar makes me ill and I like apples more. Oh not as bloated but no idea why.
this makes no sense, as your body does not know the difference between the sugar in the frappe and the sugar in the apple. You might have a sensitivity to the milk in the frappe, perhaps.
Two cents from me: Your body may not know the difference, but it may be that your taste buds come to: during busy season at our office, we had a delivery of Dunkin Donuts for breakfast. Which I have always liked, especially the chocolate ones (of course!). So the night before, I adjusted my meals so I could fit a chocolate donut as breakfast. I had not had such a carby-sugary-yummy, nutritionally-wasteful breakfast for a long time, and I was looking forward to it.
Imagine my surprise and disappointment when, as I let it go down, I tasted a kind of plastic, I dunno, "fake" aftertaste which I had never tasted before. I managed half of it, tossed the rest, and got a dark-chocolate bar (Lindth, I *think*) that evening.
I found it an interesting experience.
That happens when they fry the donut in stale oil or it sits around for too long. Ends up tasting like butt.0 -
It comes down to personal responsibility. OP, you have a problem with self-control. That's ok. A lot of us do. I know that I have a problem controlling myself around certain foods. And its not just sweets. So I don't have them in the house often. It's not the food's fault; it's mine. I can overeat everything that tastes good, because I like the taste. Address the issue -- you -- and go from there. You'll be a lot more successful in the long run.0
-
Maybe they mean life is harder in general? Tying shoes, huffing and puffing all the time doing normal activities. At least that's what I got from it.FitnessTim wrote: »
It is a lot more work to be overweight than it is to be fit.
Nope. It's not cruel, it's reality. Some have no self control, some do. I had no self control combined with laziness and lack of caring. If that's fat shaming then I'm fat shaming myself, because I was fat, obese and I was lazy. And since you want to this let's be sensitive approach, you can't comment on what I just said because I was obese and you never were and don't know what it's like. But I don't really believe that, but I can go ahead and say it because how could you know what fat shaming feels like if in fact you know the reason was laziness.
Calories are the factor in weight gain. If it was sugar then you could go ahead and say we could gain weight while eating at a deficit but eating to many pieces of fruit. And that's not the case.
How do you figure?
0 -
I think you should have them as a snack and find out the nutritional facts on how much you should eat, but I totally understand the sugar intake, I think that's my enemy too, and may be the reason why I got my gallbladder removed, too many artificial drinks not much water. Even jotting down in the food diary yesterday it said I was taking in a lot of sugars, and I thought it was healthy to just eat raisins or drink naked, those sugars do add up apparently.
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Depending on self control alone is not a valid weight loss strategy for most people. Self control is a limited resource.
Going to the gym 7 days a week and meticulously tracking calories is not about self control. It's habituation. Once you develop those habits, it is relatively easy. Still anyone that commits themselves to that lifestyle should be commended.
Saying that people are overweight because they lack self control is wrong and also cruel. I had thought fat-shaming was a thing of the past but apparently it is still out there.
I'm not overweight. I'm in relatively good shape. However, as I get older I am finding it more difficult to maintain my level of fitness doing the same things I've always done. Whether it is my metabolism slowing down or increased responsibilities in my life, I can't simply eat whatever I want and expect to stay in the same shape.
I believe sugar is a factor in weight gain. I don't have a problem with restricting sugar so that's the approach I'm going with for now. I'll still track my calories in/out so it's not like I believe restricting sugar is the "secret" to fitness.
I'm 5 years older than you are.
It's really not about personal control. It's about personal accountability and responsibility. It's about owning your own behavior.
It's specious to mix aging into your arguments about food choice and your lack of responsibility when it comes to their consumption.
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »
Nope. It's not cruel, it's reality. Some have no self control, some do. I had no self control combined with laziness and lack of caring. If that's fat shaming then I'm fat shaming myself, because I was fat, obese and I was lazy. And since you want to this let's be sensitive approach, you can't comment on what I just said because I was obese and you never were and don't know what it's like. But I don't really believe that, but I can go ahead and say it because how could you know what fat shaming feels like if in fact you know the reason was laziness.
Calories are the factor in weight gain. If it was sugar then you could go ahead and say we could gain weight while eating at a deficit but eating to many pieces of fruit. And that's not the case.
It is a lot more work to be overweight than it is to be fit.
If you were never overweight, then how do you know how much relative "work" it takes to be that way?
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »For the past few weeks I have been restricting my intake of sugar. I am not just talking about "added sugar" but sugar in general. While there may be differences in sugars (fructose, glucose, etc) it is more practical for me to treat them as the same.
Yesterday I was out with my family and in the spirit of having a good time I had suggested we get some Cinnamon Delights from Taco Bell. If you haven't tried them, don't - they're are delicious. It was an experiment to test the theory that all calories are basically equal.
With my first taste of sugary treat, my ability to control my eating diminished. I ended up eating 10 of them when I had only planned on eat 2 or 3. They are small but loaded with sugar and fat.
Soon after, I felt my energy and motivation to move dropped. I felt terrible and had trouble focusing. I believe it was the sharp contrast to a low sugar diet I was noticing. When I consumed sugar on a regular basis I probably felt that way all the time and thought it was normal.
Some people get really defensive about the studies that show that sugar is unhealthy or even toxic. They imply that there is a unfair attack on sugar. Well I was just as skeptical but I chose to try and reduce my intake of sugar and see what happens. What I've experienced appears to confirm what the studies have shown and that is that sugar has both long term and short term negative effects on the body and mind.
Some argue that sugar is an enjoyable part of life. For me that feeling of succumbing to mindless craving is terrible. The short term and long term effects of high sugar consumption are not enjoyable.
I agree with you. I gave up sweeteners (natural & otherwise, including fruit), along with caffeine, gum & alcohol in December. I have never felt or looked better, physically & mentally.
0 -
AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »That happens when they fry the donut in stale oil or it sits around for too long. Ends up tasting like butt.
Ah! Then tsk-tsk-shame on them for doing so first thing in the morning!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Talenti has the best container of any frozen treat.I was eating a porkchop while watching the Warriors lose last night. I've never had porkchops watching a Warriors game. Never again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh no! Is my gelato the reason the Blackhawks lost? Because a Stanley Cup isn't worth giving up the Talenti goodness.
You've never had Paciugo. Granted, it's not in stores so you have visit the shop but OMGAWESOMENESS!!!
And to keep from going completely off track, OP, you're going to get all kinds of hidden sugar, especially if you eat a lot of fruit. Restricting sugar you can see doesn't help that much. All you're really doing is reinforcing in your mind that some types of foods are bad, which isn't true. Food is food; it's not good or evil or out to get you or anything like that. You, personally, might have issues with certain types of foods, but that's not because they're evil. Different people react to foods in different ways. I'm perfectly happy with sugar myself. In moderation, because it does add calories, but learning portion control and self control is what helped me, not avoiding a specific food because the internet or some random show tells me it's bad.
Also, what you did isn't really a scientific experiment. For that, you need multiple subjects, a proper control group, documented processes, and scientific evaluation. If you do all that through several trials and come up with the same conclusion each time that sugar is bad, then I'm willing to listen.0 -
They don't have those in my state
Talenti has the best container of any frozen treat.I was eating a porkchop while watching the Warriors lose last night. I've never had porkchops watching a Warriors game. Never again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh no! Is my gelato the reason the Blackhawks lost? Because a Stanley Cup isn't worth giving up the Talenti goodness.
You've never had Paciugo. Granted, it's not in stores so you have visit the shop but OMGAWESOMENESS!!!
0 -
They don't have those in my state
Talenti has the best container of any frozen treat.I was eating a porkchop while watching the Warriors lose last night. I've never had porkchops watching a Warriors game. Never again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh no! Is my gelato the reason the Blackhawks lost? Because a Stanley Cup isn't worth giving up the Talenti goodness.
You've never had Paciugo. Granted, it's not in stores so you have visit the shop but OMGAWESOMENESS!!!
*lesad*
Don't despair, they are still expanding, so maybe someday you'll see one!0 -
Also, what you did isn't really a scientific experiment. For that, you need multiple subjects, a proper control group, documented processes, and scientific evaluation. If you do all that through several trials and come up with the same conclusion each time that sugar is bad, then I'm willing to listen.
I'm not in until it's peer-reviewed. It's stupid easy to get a study published these days.
OP, I'm glad that you've found something that works for your lifestyle. I think what a lot of people didn't appreciate was the demonetization of sugar you were toting about. You had a strong reaction to a high sugar, high carb item because you'd been purposely avoiding sugar for an extended time; it's very similar to when long term vegans/vegetarians chose to resume eating meat and feel nauseated or even throw up the first few times they consume it. If you want to continue to avoid/limit sugar, go for it; it's your body, your nutrition. But I don't think you can really be surprised at the very limited amount of people who agreed with your approach enough to have tried it or be willing to.0 -
I'm all for people disagreeing with my approach but some of the responses were just mean. That backpedaling gif would have been the worse but it was funny.
People were beating up on my "experiment" like I was trying to submit it to Scientific American. Flawed as it was, it was still an experiment. Isn't that what we need to do when trying to learn what works for us. Next time, I'll round up a few thousand volunteers and have it reviewed by several medical groups.
As for the topic of self control, I stand by what it said. A person with weight issues can't depend solely on self control. Part of the reason why MFP is such a great service is that it helps connects us with others who can inspire and motivate us to keep going. Below is a link to a TED video that explains it better than I can:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3TX-Nu5wTS8
I know people are going to knock that video. I could post several other references but it wouldn't matter - some people are so convinced they have all the answers already that they refuse to consider different perspectives.
As for my take on sugar, perhaps I'm about 5 years ahead of what will someday be considered common sense. Or I could be completely wrong. Please link any references that prove me wrong if you have it so I can stop defending it. I looked and couldn't find anything substantial that disproves the several studies that have concluded that sugar is harmful.
Here's one potential pro-sugar resource I found. It shocks me that CNN would publish something so misleading.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/opinion/briscoe-sugar-getting-it-wrong/
The article above is misleading for a number of reasons. First of all, it's an opinion article. It makes the same tired argument against "demonizing" sugar. It goes on to say:The fact is that American per capita consumption of real sugar (sucrose) is lower now than it was 40 years ago by approximately one-third (34%). So of all the things we need to worry about in this world, "higher" consumption of sugar is not among them. Because we've been consuming less of it for decades.
Of course we are consuming less sucrose than before because most sugars today are high-fructose corn syrup.
Let's put aside all the studies that demonstrate that sugar is harmful and just consider the calorie content of sugar. It is less calorie dense than fat at 4 grams versus 9 grams. However, sugar is much more palatable that fat or protein. People generally can consume more sugar than the other macros. When sugar is added to foods, we tend to eat more of it. Fruits which have sugar are generally better because of all the water and fiber that make them more filling. With processed fruits like orange juice, those benefits are removed.
Most people who eat a balanced diet don't need to worry about sugar. However most of the population considers Fruit Loops and soda to be part of a balanced diet. They can be great as treats but shouldn't be consumed daily unless compensated with extra physical activity.
One of the great things about exercise is that it could help negate the effects of sub-par diet (no science here, just speculating). When people claim to eat cake everyday and still be fit, I have to assume they are very active. One could even suggest that a person with a high level of physical activity would need to add sugars to their diet to prevent excessive weight loss. I'd go for more protein but that's just me.
That's enough for now. I look forward to the bashing I'm likely to get for having an opinion.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »For the past few weeks I have been restricting my intake of sugar. I am not just talking about "added sugar" but sugar in general. While there may be differences in sugars (fructose, glucose, etc) it is more practical for me to treat them as the same.
Yesterday I was out with my family and in the spirit of having a good time I had suggested we get some Cinnamon Delights from Taco Bell. If you haven't tried them, don't - they're are delicious. It was an experiment to test the theory that all calories are basically equal.
With my first taste of sugary treat, my ability to control my eating diminished. I ended up eating 10 of them when I had only planned on eat 2 or 3. They are small but loaded with sugar and fat.
Soon after, I felt my energy and motivation to move dropped. I felt terrible and had trouble focusing. I believe it was the sharp contrast to a low sugar diet I was noticing. When I consumed sugar on a regular basis I probably felt that way all the time and thought it was normal.
Some people get really defensive about the studies that show that sugar is unhealthy or even toxic. They imply that there is a unfair attack on sugar. Well I was just as skeptical but I chose to try and reduce my intake of sugar and see what happens. What I've experienced appears to confirm what the studies have shown and that is that sugar has both long term and short term negative effects on the body and mind.
Some argue that sugar is an enjoyable part of life. For me that feeling of succumbing to mindless craving is terrible. The short term and long term effects of high sugar consumption are not enjoyable.
yea, this would not qualify as a serious study.
Here is my own n=1. Last friday I ate two pieces of birthday cake at lunch, felt great, and then proceeded to crush my deadlift session. hence, everyone should eat birthday cake four hours before deadlifting. See what I did there..?
So since sugar is so bad for you, you are going to eat zero sugar for the rest of your life? No bread, sweets, ice cream, vegetables, etc???
and please list some of these long term and short term effects….0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »I'm all for people disagreeing with my approach but some of the responses were just mean. That backpedaling gif would have been the worse but it was funny.
People were beating up on my "experiment" like I was trying to submit it to Scientific American. Flawed as it was, it was still an experiment. Isn't that what we need to do when trying to learn what works for us. Next time, I'll round up a few thousand volunteers and have it reviewed by several medical groups.
As for the topic of self control, I stand by what it said. A person with weight issues can't depend solely on self control. Part of the reason why MFP is such a great service is that it helps connects us with others who can inspire and motivate us to keep going. Below is a link to a TED video that explains it better than I can:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3TX-Nu5wTS8
I know people are going to knock that video. I could post several other references but it wouldn't matter - some people are so convinced they have all the answers already that they refuse to consider different perspectives.
As for my take on sugar, perhaps I'm about 5 years ahead of what will someday be considered common sense. Or I could be completely wrong. Please link any references that prove me wrong if you have it so I can stop defending it. I looked and couldn't find anything substantial that disproves the several studies that have concluded that sugar is harmful.
Here's one potential pro-sugar resource I found. It shocks me that CNN would publish something so misleading.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/opinion/briscoe-sugar-getting-it-wrong/
The article above is misleading for a number of reasons. First of all, it's an opinion article. It makes the same tired argument against "demonizing" sugar. It goes on to say:The fact is that American per capita consumption of real sugar (sucrose) is lower now than it was 40 years ago by approximately one-third (34%). So of all the things we need to worry about in this world, "higher" consumption of sugar is not among them. Because we've been consuming less of it for decades.
Of course we are consuming less sucrose than before because most sugars today are high-fructose corn syrup.
Let's put aside all the studies that demonstrate that sugar is harmful and just consider the calorie content of sugar. It is less calorie dense than fat at 4 grams versus 9 grams. However, sugar is much more palatable that fat or protein. People generally can consume more sugar than the other macros. When sugar is added to foods, we tend to eat more of it. Fruits which have sugar are generally better because of all the water and fiber that make them more filling. With processed fruits like orange juice, those benefits are removed.
Most people who eat a balanced diet don't need to worry about sugar. However most of the population considers Fruit Loops and soda to be part of a balanced diet. They can be great as treats but shouldn't be consumed daily unless compensated with extra physical activity.
One of the great things about exercise is that it could help negate the effects of sub-par diet (no science here, just speculating). When people claim to eat cake everyday and still be fit, I have to assume they are very active. One could even suggest that a person with a high level of physical activity would need to add sugars to their diet to prevent excessive weight loss. I'd go for more protein but that's just me.
That's enough for now. I look forward to the bashing I'm likely to get for having an opinion.
Nothing wrong with you having an opinion, but you have to realize that other people will have other experiences that are different than yours. For me personally-I've had great success with weight loss, maintenance and better health, while continuing to eat sugar (both naturally occurring and added). I'm also no longer a pre-diabetic. So yeah, I have a hard time getting on the anti-sugar band wagon when I've had such great success while continuing to include sugar in my woe. To each their own
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »I'm all for people disagreeing with my approach but some of the responses were just mean. That backpedaling gif would have been the worse but it was funny.
People were beating up on my "experiment" like I was trying to submit it to Scientific American. Flawed as it was, it was still an experiment. Isn't that what we need to do when trying to learn what works for us. Next time, I'll round up a few thousand volunteers and have it reviewed by several medical groups.
As for the topic of self control, I stand by what it said. A person with weight issues can't depend solely on self control. Part of the reason why MFP is such a great service is that it helps connects us with others who can inspire and motivate us to keep going. Below is a link to a TED video that explains it better than I can:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3TX-Nu5wTS8
I know people are going to knock that video. I could post several other references but it wouldn't matter - some people are so convinced they have all the answers already that they refuse to consider different perspectives.
As for my take on sugar, perhaps I'm about 5 years ahead of what will someday be considered common sense. Or I could be completely wrong. Please link any references that prove me wrong if you have it so I can stop defending it. I looked and couldn't find anything substantial that disproves the several studies that have concluded that sugar is harmful.
Here's one potential pro-sugar resource I found. It shocks me that CNN would publish something so misleading.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/opinion/briscoe-sugar-getting-it-wrong/
The article above is misleading for a number of reasons. First of all, it's an opinion article. It makes the same tired argument against "demonizing" sugar. It goes on to say:The fact is that American per capita consumption of real sugar (sucrose) is lower now than it was 40 years ago by approximately one-third (34%). So of all the things we need to worry about in this world, "higher" consumption of sugar is not among them. Because we've been consuming less of it for decades.
Of course we are consuming less sucrose than before because most sugars today are high-fructose corn syrup.
Let's put aside all the studies that demonstrate that sugar is harmful and just consider the calorie content of sugar. It is less calorie dense than fat at 4 grams versus 9 grams. However, sugar is much more palatable that fat or protein. People generally can consume more sugar than the other macros. When sugar is added to foods, we tend to eat more of it. Fruits which have sugar are generally better because of all the water and fiber that make them more filling. With processed fruits like orange juice, those benefits are removed.
Most people who eat a balanced diet don't need to worry about sugar. However most of the population considers Fruit Loops and soda to be part of a balanced diet. They can be great as treats but shouldn't be consumed daily unless compensated with extra physical activity.
One of the great things about exercise is that it could help negate the effects of sub-par diet (no science here, just speculating). When people claim to eat cake everyday and still be fit, I have to assume they are very active. One could even suggest that a person with a high level of physical activity would need to add sugars to their diet to prevent excessive weight loss. I'd go for more protein but that's just me.
That's enough for now. I look forward to the bashing I'm likely to get for having an opinion.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
FitnessTim wrote: »People were beating up on my "experiment" like I was trying to submit it to Scientific American. Flawed as it was, it was still an experiment. Isn't that what we need to do when trying to learn what works for us. Next time, I'll round up a few thousand volunteers and have it reviewed by several medical groups.
I'm all for trying things and seeing how they affect us. I just think people were raising questions about the conclusion you drew from your "experiment," properly, as well as raising concerns about that uncontrollable feeling, as it sounded from the description that your experiment had actually contributed to it happening. From what you subsequently said, the prior restriction may not have been as extreme as it initially seemed. In any case, I'd say it's too soon to say, but if you feel like it's easier to avoid certain foods and aren't missing them, and don't think it's causing any ill effects (like less control around them), then what difference does it make what others think? It kind of seemed that you were looking for something more, such as encouragement that this is the right approach or even to convince others that it's the healthy thing to do.As for the topic of self control, I stand by what it said. A person with weight issues can't depend solely on self control.
Agree, but it has to be part of it. But yeah, if it's constantly requiring lots of self control in a way you notice, such that you feel like you are always fighting with yourself, that's probably not going to be a good longterm strategy.As for my take on sugar, perhaps I'm about 5 years ahead of what will someday be considered common sense. Or I could be completely wrong. Please link any references that prove me wrong if you have it so I can stop defending it. I looked and couldn't find anything substantial that disproves the several studies that have concluded that sugar is harmful.
My problem with your posts on this is that you don't seem to distinguish between excess sugar being a problem, especially in the context of an unbalanced diet with far too many calories, and sugar in general being a problem. It's correct, I think, to say that Americans in general eat far too much sugar (largely because that contributes to far too many calories, however). That's does not mean that sugar is inherently harmful.
Once again, it's significant that the WHO limitation (which makes sense to me) doesn't claim harms other than increased obesity (from increased calories) and dental issues.
I tend to like David Katz's (of Yale) take on this. He completely agrees that the US diet is too high in added sugar (not fruit--pretty much no one reputable thinks that the problem with the US diet is too much fruit--usual recommendations are for more). However, he also thinks singling out sugar (or carbs) is the wrong approach and just more of the same stupidity that we already did with fat. Instead, he says we should focus on what actually makes up a good, balanced diet. Here's one example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-diet_b_1553284.html
As you can see, it's not at all a defense of added sugar, let alone in excess, and yet I think your posts are similar to the kinds of things he's criticizing here, which is what bothered me about them. I don't think there's any evidence that eating some added sugar in moderation (or fruit more generally) is at all harmful.
Indeed, I think that if one stops focusing on cutting stuff out and instead focuses on eating a good balanced diet (calorie appropriate) with plenty of protein and veggies and fiber and on regular meals rather than random snacking (I know snacking works fine for some, but I tend to think this is rarer just because snacks tend to be less balanced), that you really aren't in any danger of eating excess sugar. By definition the room for sugar will be limited or, if higher, it will be because you are one of those people (like some endurance athletes) who has room for the calories, and is using them more appropriately for fueling and in a way that studies indicate tend to counteract any ill effects for most.
And of course if you have blood sugar issues you should be even more vigilant, although my understanding is that it's about unbalanced carbs in general, not merely sugar. (And interestingly, I was just talking to a friend with T2 diabetes this weekend, and he says carbs plus fat in some contexts can often be the worst, at least for him.)The fact is that American per capita consumption of real sugar (sucrose) is lower now than it was 40 years ago by approximately one-third (34%). So of all the things we need to worry about in this world, "higher" consumption of sugar is not among them. Because we've been consuming less of it for decades.
Yes, this is dumb.Let's put aside all the studies that demonstrate that sugar is harmful and just consider the calorie content of sugar. It is less calorie dense than fat at 4 grams versus 9 grams. However, sugar is much more palatable that fat or protein. People generally can consume more sugar than the other macros. When sugar is added to foods, we tend to eat more of it. Fruits which have sugar are generally better because of all the water and fiber that make them more filling. With processed fruits like orange juice, those benefits are removed.
See, this is where I think you go wrong. Sugar is NOT particularly caloric, and it's NOT more palatable than fat or protein. IMO, sugar isn't interesting at all unless combined with fat, and other combos (fat and salt and starch, fat and protein) seem to be just as appealing to the human palate if you look at foods people perceive as tasty. Fried chicken, for one example.
Added sugar is a big issue with the US diet for the reasons I stated earlier--it tends to be in non nutrient dense foods that we eat in addition to our regular meals, so is a huge source of excess calories. But with the exception of soda (which I always forget about, since its been so long since I had a desire for non diet soda, and people drank it much more sparingly when I was growing up), the calories from these sugary treats are usually more from other ingredients. For example, I analyzed a cookie recipe I have at MFP, and the highest number of calories are from butter. Flour also contributes a decent amount. Sugar, really not that much. But of course the sugar makes it tasty. Would the cookie be particularly better for me if I eliminated a small amount of the calories by using Stevia instead of sugar? Not in my opinion. And I think it's just fine for me, if eaten in moderation--one cookie as opposed to a batch.Most people who eat a balanced diet don't need to worry about sugar. However most of the population considers Fruit Loops and soda to be part of a balanced diet. They can be great as treats but shouldn't be consumed daily unless compensated with extra physical activity.
One of the great things about exercise is that it could help negate the effects of sub-par diet (no science here, just speculating). When people claim to eat cake everyday and still be fit, I have to assume they are very active. One could even suggest that a person with a high level of physical activity would need to add sugars to their diet to prevent excessive weight loss. I'd go for more protein but that's just me.
I think this is all pretty similar to what I've been saying, and seems different from the thrust of your original post.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Here's my experiment. I baked a pan of brownies. I ate one. I wrapped the rest in foil and put them away.
I felt fine after I ate it.
The end.
This was after years of telling myself I was addicted to sugar, eating too much sugar made me feel like crap, and I never used to be able to stop at just eating one brownie. A pan of brownies? The whole thing or bust.
It's never the food, it's always you.
0 -
Sugar is a form or carb and higher carb/sugar foods don't work for me but not everybody is the same -- we all have different genetics, and may respond differently to food -- particularly our neurochemistry (brain chemistry). There is a great article in well.blogs.nytimes.com titled "How Carbs Can Trigger Food Cravings" by Anahad O'Connor. it summarizes research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and research published in the New England Journal of Medicine that shows that sugary foods and other processed carbs cause some people to experience abrupt spikes and falls in blood sugar appear to stimulate parts of the brain involved in hunger, craving and reward. In other words, if you eat these foods you want more. It isn't so much that in terms of actual energy/ calories there is a difference, but that these foods affect the neurotransmitters in some peoples brain in a way that sets off craving and leads to overeating. That is why those who say it doesn't matter what you eat do a disservice to those of us who are sensitive to higher carb foods and the resulting cravings. In other words we need to stick to a lower carb/higher protein food plan to sustain a healthy way of eating that allows us to lose weight. For me it doesn't matter what form the carbs come in sugary donuts or mangos -- they can set off my cravings and it is simply easier not to eat them. Why do people think the same thing works for everyone? For me some foods work better for others in helping me stick to a healthy diet, with the ideal number of calories for losing weight.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions