Sugar Cravings
Replies
-
caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.0 -
I recognize that sugar is not nicotine, which is why I said that in my post, and I added in my edit to clarify that people experience cravings for cigarettes after the nicotine is out of their systems, and that those cravings would be similar to something experienced by someone trying to cut sweets/sugar - the craving is more related to the habit (eating sweets art night/smoking after a meal or while driving), or emotions/stress (eating sweets/smoking to deal), rather than an actual substance. But if someone asked for a way to alleviate that cigarette craving, the response wouldn't be to have a cigarette, it would be to work through it. I don't see why asking about any other craving a person does not want to give in to would be treated differently.
As stated in the quotes, the ambiguity here is due to people's beliefs about sugar, and it seems it's more about getting their position on that topic out there than actually helping the OP with his situation. I do not disagree that "stop eating sugar" should be the only answer to appear, however I think that "eat sugar in moderation" is not always the most appropriate answer either, particularly in cases where the person indicates they are trying to cut back. But I also don't particularly care why someone else chooses to do something in their life and their diet if it's not detrimental to their health and helps them get to their goal, so perhaps I don't take these types of posts as seriously as others.
Cutting back, as opposed to elimination, is moderation. So why would "eat it in moderation" not be the best advice to a person who indicates they wish to cut back?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The thing is, they DID study it. They didn't just take it as fact just because people said it. That's the scientific way. They didn't go "It does exist!", wrote it in the medicine books and dared everyone to prove otherwise.
The doctors didn't study it. But they believed it. They believed it for many decades before anyone said, "Yup, we can scientifically prove that it's real."
It simply isn't logical to say, "If I can't google it, it doesn't exist! It's all in your head!"
That poster is suggesting that it isn't logical to believe something that hasn't been scientifically figured out yet. I'm saying it is logical and that many, many logical people believe things before the science has explained the Why.
It's very logical, when you hear a bunch of people describe the same thing, to think, "Might be something to it."
Logical people think that way. Scientifically-minded people REALLY think that way.
You don't have to believe it until there is proof, but you cannot deny it exists on the basis that there isn't an explanation yet. That really is not logical, in the truest sense of logic.0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
LOL,
Lost 121 pounds and now been maintaining for 11 months.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.
My statistics come from Dr Robert Lustig. Where did yours come from?0 -
No it doesn't!! I drink it most every day and never have issues. Most likely in people's heads.
What part of "in some people" did you not understand? Great, it doesn't cause cravings in you. But it does in me. Thus, the "in some people".0 -
LOL! Very cute coming from somebody who never backs up anything.
0 -
In all fairness, its hard to fully trust rat studies. If there were any studies with human trials, it would be more plausible. And besides the eat patterns under which most of the rats showed addiction doesnt mirror that of the typical person....
There is a difference between what you wrote and when someone else writes "sugar is NOT addictive. It's all in people's heads. They just don't want to take personal responsibility. There is NO EVIDENCE for addiction. Woo"
What you wrote basically sounds like you are skeptical, but you acknowledge that it could at least be possible, or even if you highly doubt it you acknowledge that there is SOME science to support it at least to some degree.
Other people act like people who believe this are just morons who are pulling this idea out of thin air.
I believe it. You don't. But the reality is it has not yet been proven one way or the other and research in this area does continue.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »
Cutting back, as opposed to elimination, is moderation. So why would "eat it in moderation" not be the best advice to a person who indicates they wish to cut back?
I suppose it depends on how you define cutting back and moderation. It seems most of the responses here view moderation as "just fit it into your day if you want it," which is fine if you're someone who is good about portion sizes. The OP may have a problem with portion sizes, and is trying to cut back and moderate in terms of frequency - having a treat only on special occasions, for example. That's not elimination, but it's not moderation in the sense of "fit it in," either. Therefore, "just have some" isn't going to be very helpful to them when what they are trying to do is work through a craving to keep with their goal of cutting back on consumption frequency.
While I think moderation can be both portion size or frequency, I wouldn't really consider someone who only eats cake on special occasions to be "moderating" their intake. I don't eat fast food (McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, etc); that's not to say that if I were on a road trip that I wouldn't eat it, but it's not something I eat every day or even plan to work into my diet, so I don't consider the very rare circumstance when I would eat it to be moderation so much as, well, a very rare occurrence. Moderation (to me) seems to be foods you enjoy and want to have in your diet (for whatever reason), rather than just something that you might eat as a one-off and not feel any need to incorporate in your normal diet.0 -
How does making a choice to eliminate something from your diet indicative of not accepting responsibility and blaming someone else?
It doesn't. To me it is taking responsibility and doing what is necessary to fix the issue.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
It doesn't. To me it is taking responsibility and doing what is necessary to fix the issue.
I am always amazed when people think that their way is the only "right" way and that everyone else is "wrong".
I am not a "no sugar" nor a "low carb" person. I eat what I want...what I don't want...I don't eat. If I can be successful moderating a food...then I do. If I can't be...I eliminate. I do it my way...regardless if someone might think that is irresponsible or shifting the blame.
However I choose to do things I am not so egotistical as to think that it is "right" for anyone except for myself.
0 -
The doctors didn't study it. But they believed it. They believed it for many decades before anyone said, "Yup, we can scientifically prove that it's real."
It simply isn't logical to say, "If I can't google it, it doesn't exist! It's all in your head!"
That poster is suggesting that it isn't logical to believe something that hasn't been scientifically figured out yet. I'm saying it is logical and that many, many logical people believe things before the science has explained the Why.
It's very logical, when you hear a bunch of people describe the same thing, to think, "Might be something to it."
Logical people think that way. Scientifically-minded people REALLY think that way.
You don't have to believe it until there is proof, but you cannot deny it exists on the basis that there isn't an explanation yet. That really is not logical, in the truest sense of logic.
The symptoms for that OAS aren't exactly something you can just imagine, it's got distinct physical symptoms happening within minutes of eating the food (according to my quick wiki search). Being unable to control yourself around food X on the other hand is something you should be more sceptical against when all you've got for it is someone's word.0 -
That's the thing. I've said it here and elsewhere. I'm going to put it in caps for emphasis:stevencloser wrote: »
The symptoms for that OAS aren't exactly something you can just imagine, it's got distinct physical symptoms happening within minutes of eating the food (according to my quick wiki search). Being unable to control yourself around food X on the other hand is something you should be more sceptical against when all you've got for it is someone's word.
IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF BEING UNABLE TO CONTROL MYSELF.
I can eat a little white pasta and not eat more. I have done that. But once I eat it, the cravings will not go away until I've slept.
More caps:
IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF LIKING IT AND WANTING MORE.
There are things I like a whole lot more that - although I might want to eat more of them - I will not crave.
Also, many, many people - most people - did not believe that I couldn't eat fresh peaches, but could eat them in heavy syrup. The fact that Light Syrup was better than fresh, but worse than heavy syrup really sent them over the edge. So many people didn't believe me.
Some people still don't believe it exists. Here, they will google it, find it on google, and believe it exists. IRL, they just be all, "You can't eat fresh tomato because you're allergic to it, but you can eat it in spaghetti sauce. Uh-huh."
What's more, I got most of the foods that I developed allergies to back. I can eat most of them again. The science doesn't know why that happens. But that's real, too.0 -
Of course everyone who eliminates things won't binge. The people who insist that you must include all things in your diet OR ELSE are just wrong...and a little foolish, IMO. What works for one doesn't work for all. Duh.
It is true that some people will get in the car and go get their treats, but that's a whole other ball of wax and one that probably could be helped with some therapy. For most people, not having the items in the house is good enough. Not in house, can't eat it.
As I pointed out, this is often not true. I mostly used to snack on sweet stuff at work, not home. I keep more sweet stuff at home now than when I was getting fat. (I walk past the grocery store on my way home and frequently stop in there to buy a few additional vegetables or anything else I need, and back in the day if I wanted ice cream, that's when I'd get it--I didn't keep it at home, unlike now.)
That this is not just me can be illustrated by the numerous posts where people fret about office snacks being tempting or overeating at buffets or church events or what have you.
I agree that if having food at home is a temptation it's a good thing to control, but learning control even when one is unable to control access is still extremely important.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
As I pointed out, this is often not true. I mostly used to snack on sweet stuff at work, not home. I keep more sweet stuff at home now than when I was getting fat. (I walk past the grocery store on my way home and frequently stop in there to buy a few additional vegetables or anything else I need, and back in the day if I wanted ice cream, that's when I'd get it--I didn't keep it at home, unlike now.)
That this is not just me can be illustrated by the numerous posts where people fret about office snacks being tempting or overeating at buffets or church events or what have you.
I agree that if having food at home is a temptation it's a good thing to control, but learning control even when one is unable to control access is still extremely important.
Agree.0 -
That's true. People will encounter foods outside the home and have to learn how to control themselves at those times, too.lemurcat12 wrote: »
As I pointed out, this is often not true. I mostly used to snack on sweet stuff at work, not home. I keep more sweet stuff at home now than when I was getting fat. (I walk past the grocery store on my way home and frequently stop in there to buy a few additional vegetables or anything else I need, and back in the day if I wanted ice cream, that's when I'd get it--I didn't keep it at home, unlike now.)
That this is not just me can be illustrated by the numerous posts where people fret about office snacks being tempting or overeating at buffets or church events or what have you.
I agree that if having food at home is a temptation it's a good thing to control, but learning control even when one is unable to control access is still extremely important.
Good point.
0 -
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
I don't think that's true with sugar cravings. Generally speaking, the person is concerned with wanting more of the food than they can eat within their weight loss plan, being bothered by wanting it at all (or many) times. Hearing "when I include a small amount of chocolate at a planned time I stop thinking about it at other times" (although that was not precisely my answer) does, indeed, seem responsive.
Nor do I agree that OP "clarified" his request as you state. He said: 'Seems like the general consensus here is just to hold on and fight the cravings. Well that's what I've been trying to do, and I'll keep fighting..."
In other words, contrary to the claims that he was just told to go eat sugar, OP seems to think that the advice he got was just keep fighting. That doesn't mean that's the only kind of advice he's interested in.
Anyway, I, like others, told him what worked for me, and I also indicated that more information would be helpful to provide a better answer, which would include his goals. Saying that's somehow disrespectful of OP's question or demonstrates a desire to argue with his goals is IMO false and rather offensive.
I find it strange that somehow the posts telling him to go low carb (when he did not mention an issue with carbs in general or a desire to go low carb) are considered helpful, but those telling him about personal experiences fighting sugar cravings that included some consumption of sugar are being criticized. This is especially strange in that OP did not say he wanted to eliminate all sugar.0 -
This is exactly the problem.
"We don't believe you have a valid point of view, so we will not help you" is fine. Ignore the thread.
But the, "Eat sugar!" is done not to help the person, but to point out that you don't believe they have a valid point of view.
Please explain how my post--which discussed a strategy I use that includes eating some sugar within my diet regularly, in a moderate way--somehow indicates that OP does not have a valid POV.
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to eliminated added sugar (I do think there's something wrong with telling everyone that this is the only or most healthy approach, as I believe that's factually wrong). I do not see that OP said that he wanted to eliminate added sugar or would be uninterested in what I did.0 -
I find dark chocolate from lidl or aldi brilliant... Iv an.awful sweet tooth so I buy a bar of dark chocolate nd put it in d fridge.. Once every two days or wen I'm craving il have two squares... Dats enough to get rid of the craving and because it's in the fridge it's too hard to eat the whole bar in one sittingWhat can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You realize that what you wrote has nothing to do with the burden of proving a proposition, right? The burden of proof has nothing to do with googling it or with the prevailing position being wrong. Einstein didn't just say "Prove relativity doesn't exist." He's the one who said it was true, so he proved that observations are more consistent with his model, even though his wasn't the prevailing position at the time and even though people said he was wrong.That's not true. Many people figure stuff out before the science supports it. In fact, sometimes they study it because people are saying, "Hey, this is the case!"
There have been threads here about Oral Allergy Syndrome. People who had it knew it was real. Allergists who heard lots of different people describe it knew it was real. They didn't say, "There is no science to support this, so it cannot be real! My patients just don't like strawberries!" A lot of lay people said that, though. "You just don't like them."
It got studied and studied and studied and studied some more. Finally, someone figured out it was related to proteins. And they gave it a name.
It was real before it had a name.
Logical people, when they hear others describing the same thing, think, "There might be something to this." That's logical. That's scientific.
Saying, "I can't google it! There is no study that says it's true, so it must be false!!" That is the illogical thing.
0 -
Like I said, not enough words in the universe. Even though I had already posted the of kind helpful post you mention. Even though my friends list is overwhelmingly people who added me, because I was helpful to them. Because "some people" still crave things after eating them. Even though some don't. For someone who likes to make a lot of "some people this" and "some people that" posts, you're awfully inflexible when it comes to your beliefs about the motivations of others, despite facts which contradict those beliefs. A more introspective person might wonder why she thinks like this.For some people, eating the food will not satisfy the craving. I know it didn't work for me. Eat pasta, crave more. Eat more, wait a little, crave more. Eating it didn't help. Not eating more didn't help. The only that helped was not allowing the craving to begin, which could only be done by never eating any in the first place.
If you insist that your approach is done to help people, I'm not going to keep going back and forth over it. You're right, I don't believe that you're trying to be helpful, but there is no point in going back and forth over it.
0 -
As stated in the quotes, the ambiguity here is due to people's beliefs about sugar, and it seems it's more about getting their position on that topic out there than actually helping the OP with his situation. I do not disagree that "stop eating sugar" should be the only answer to appear, however I think that "eat sugar in moderation" is not always the most appropriate answer either, particularly in cases where the person indicates they are trying to cut back. But I also don't particularly care why someone else chooses to do something in their life and their diet if it's not detrimental to their health and helps them get to their goal, so perhaps I don't take these types of posts as seriously as others.
I don't think it necessarily their beliefs but rather their experiences. Many of us have tried multiple strategies to figure out the best approach. I have tried stuff like paleo and eliminating foods that i perceived as not healthy, but what i found is it was an ineffective strategy for me. The big question here is, will the OP do better with an elimination diet or restrictive diet because some people like a more structured approach or will they prefer to preplan for incorporation. Unfortunately, we dont know that and may not understand until the OP tries both. So it is important to understand all approaches.
In the end, success is really determined by one main factor... consistency. Everyone needs to find a strategy that enables them to consistently hit their goals.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
There is a difference between what you wrote and when someone else writes "sugar is NOT addictive. It's all in people's heads. They just don't want to take personal responsibility. There is NO EVIDENCE for addiction. Woo"
What you wrote basically sounds like you are skeptical, but you acknowledge that it could at least be possible, or even if you highly doubt it you acknowledge that there is SOME science to support it at least to some degree.
Other people act like people who believe this are just morons who are pulling this idea out of thin air.
I believe it. You don't. But the reality is it has not yet been proven one way or the other and research in this area does continue.
I believe that science evolves and i try to always maintain an open mind. At this point, i do not believe that sugar is addictive but rather hyperpalatble foods can cause emotional triggers. I say this because most peoples trigger foods are generally foods that are high in fat and sugar. What i dont see is people addicted to fruits.
0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »
My statistics come from Dr Robert Lustig. Where did yours come from?
Dr.Lustig is well known to have an agenda and fequently cherry picks science to validate his position.
One thing you may not realize is that protein spikes insulin as much as carbs. What you also have to realize is in a normal body, you will cycle between lipogenesis and lipolysis.
If you actually want to understand insulin a bit more below is a good link:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3190 -
Dr.Lustig is well known to have an agenda and fequently cherry picks science to validate his position.
One thing you may not realize is that protein spikes insulin as much as carbs. What you also have to realize is in a normal body, you will cycle between lipogenesis and lipolysis.
If you actually want to understand insulin a bit more below is a good link:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
I have to disagree with the bolded. This is not usually the case. Generally carbs spike insulin higher than protein unless the carb is very high in fibre (like bran) and not entirely digestible. I would say protein elevates insulin but carbs spike insulin.
Protein does need some insulin because it helps put the amino acids into the muscles where it is needed. Yes, the insulin released, after consuming protein, in an insulin resistant individual will be higher than they would like, but it would have been even higher if it was a carb heavy meal.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=holt&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT0 -
I have to disagree with the bolded. This is not usually the case. Generally carbs spike insulin higher than protein unless the carb is very high in fibre (like bran) and not entirely digestible. I would say protein elevates insulin but carbs spike insulin.
Protein does need some insulin because it helps put the amino acids into the muscles where it is needed. Yes, the insulin released, after consuming protein, in an insulin resistant individual will be higher than they would like, but it would have been even higher if it was a carb heavy meal.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=holt&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
I guess it really should be compartmentalized, as different proteins have different responses, because according to the chart, fish has an equivalent insulin score as potato chips. But overall, their group (protein) average is lower than many carb foods.
0 -
Here is additional data to what happens to intakes if you expand it another 7 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/5/1530S.full
"Long-term trends indicate marked increases in availability of added oils, meat, cheese, frozen dairy products, sweeteners (particularly those used in carbonated beverages), fruit, fruit juices, and vegetables, which may have influenced the prevalence of childhood obesity. Flour and cereal availability has fallen since the early 1900s but has rebounded in recent decades. "
aka... all foods have increased. The bigger problem is... too much food, not enough exercise and very little control over ones diet. It's how most of us got into this situation.
OP, personally, i have seen much greater success when I have preplanned a treat into my diet. For some, eating more fruit works, for others its eliminating foods. You really have to determine which route works best for you.
I guess that I should have clarified in my original post that I crave carbs from the wrong sources. I crave carbs/sugar from processed foods such as candy, cookies, white bread, etc. The carbs from healthy sources dont satiate me. If I budget these into my diet then that uses up half my calories. I guess I'll just have to keep fighting and also make some hard choices until the cravings subside. The cravings have lessened somewhat over the past week or so.0 -
I don't understand why some people are stating that sugar isn't addictive. If I'm not addicted to it then why do I feel physically ill when I don't have it. Why does it give me so much satisfaction when I get it after I've been craving it. I feel that my reactions to it are the same as the reactions that smokers have to nicotine, or that an alcoholic has to the drink. Too much sugar can do just as much harm as a cigarette or alcohol. I believe that the reason that I'm fighting so hard to lose weight now is mainly because of my constant cravings for sugar and carbs from processed foods.0
-
Mezzie1024 wrote: »I am speaking without any scientific authority here -- just my own experience.
If I have periods of eating that are heavy in salt and sugar, it makes my ability to enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables lessen. After a bag of chips, a handful of freshly picked cherry tomatoes simply isn't going to have the same appeal or complexity of flavor as it does when I haven't been overloading my diet with salt and/or sugar. Likewise, too much salt or sugar limits my ability to truly enjoy a piece of fruit, and that's horrible because a really ripe peach is the most delicious thing on the planet. For me, eating things heavy in salt leads to me eating things heavy in sugar and vice versa. I love fruits and vegetables, so I limit things that make me enjoy them less.
I don't have to completely avoid them. Last night I had a scoop of Ben and Jerry's, and it was delicious. Had I eaten the entire pint, however, the peaches ripening on my table wouldn't be torturing me quite so much right now (they smell SO GOOD, but they aren't quite ready) and perhaps the open bag of chips my roommates have on the counter might be calling my name. I just don't go crazy. I find that having a piece of fruit for dessert is just as satisfying -- even more satisfying most of the time -- than having something super sweet. But for me, salt is an issue, too. If I have a very salty dinner, I'm more likely to choose a super sweet dessert. If I have a very sweet treat, I'm more likely to want to follow it with a salty snack.
It is entirely possible that this is just a personal quirk of mine, but if I were in your shoes having torturous cravings for sugar, I'd actually look to limiting my salt intake a bit to quiet the cravings.
BINGO! this makes so much sense for me.... THANKS. I have noticed these trends (don't want a piece of fruit after a sugar or salt snack) .... fruit alone for desert can be wonderful.... IF I haven't had a 'heavy' snack or rich meal.. My issue is I never think of fruit - lived in the north as a child and fruit was non-existent. This is where charting my food the day before comes in...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions