Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Options
Replies
-
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
The bolded is incorrect. Your body won't shut down if you stop consuming sugar.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
The bolded is incorrect. Your body won't shut down if you stop consuming sugar.
I should have said if I cut out ALL sugars, including carbs. Without it, the brain stops functioning, which would lead to my body shutting down.
Granted, that's an extreme view, but that seems to be what some people advocate until they learn more about it.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
The bolded is incorrect. Your body won't shut down if you stop consuming sugar.
I should have said if I cut out ALL sugars, including carbs. Without it, the brain stops functioning, which would lead to my body shutting down.
Granted, that's an extreme view, but that seems to be what some people advocate until they learn more about it.
I am afraid that is still not true. The glucose required by the brain can be made from dietary protein. I eat around 5 g of sugar per day, and usually less than 20g of total carbs in a day, and have for over 6 months now. Eating this low a level of sugar is at the extreme end of things, but it isn't dangerous.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
The bolded is incorrect. Your body won't shut down if you stop consuming sugar.
I should have said if I cut out ALL sugars, including carbs. Without it, the brain stops functioning, which would lead to my body shutting down.
Granted, that's an extreme view, but that seems to be what some people advocate until they learn more about it.
I am afraid that is still not true. The glucose required by the brain can be made from dietary protein. I eat around 5 g of sugar per day, and usually less than 20g of total carbs in a day, and have for over 6 months now. Eating this low a level of sugar is at the extreme end of things, but it isn't dangerous.
Correct. - Your body will convert some (not all) proteins and fat to glucose through gluconeogenesis. Once that happens, the glucose in your blood is no different than if it had been sourced from carbs.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
I'm not playing the "show the study" game; unless everyone is going to start posting studies that meet the same criteria as "acceptable evidence" to support their various positions, expecting one person to back their position with studies but not the other is an exercise in futility.
My question was more curiosity than anything else, because the dictionary definitions acknowledge non-substance (i.e. non-physical) states of addiction. I don't believe that sugar is necessary harmful in and of itself, but I also don't think that everyone reacts to substances in the same way. While there may not currently be evidence of findings of meeting the physical addiction criteria, I think making a blanket statement that it's not addictive because of that and ignoring the other definition is unwise.
Part of my curiosity is that I view addiction as being a spectrum. Even with chemically addictive substances, there seems to be a range of tolerances. Some people can have one cigarette and be done, others will have one and want more. Some people can just quit cold turkey and do fine, others struggle even with the help of support groups and medical interventions. (Just to note, nicotine has been proven addictive, but plenty of people are able to stop without needed medical treatment or psychological help, so I'm not sure necessitating treatment is a good litmus for defining addiction)
It not just with addictive substances either - look at the potential side effects on medications. Not everyone experiences them, but they are listed because there is a possibility or it was reported during trials. Some women use hormonal birth control with no issues; others have horrific reactions to the hormones, and then there are people who are everywhere in between.
I'm not sure that I believe that things are all in people's heads, or that a person has to reach a Requiem for a Dream level of bottoming out for something to be considered interfering in their lives. Which is why I think there might be something to the anecdotal evidence people present. I find the BG levels particularly interesting.
I think for me, it's the fact that some people equate craving high levels of sugar to someone trying to quit smoking crack. I think we as a society tend to over-use 'addiction' as anything bad we like to do, which trivializes people with serious addiction problems. So it frustrates me when people just automatically assume they're addicted to something because too much of it is bad and they crave it. Sorry if I came off as overbearing, though! That wasn't my intention, I was just thinking I wasn't being clear in what I was saying. That happens to me a lot.
And I can see your point about addiction being a spectrum, but again, some people actually do have a disease as there's something in their brain that makes them much more likely to develop addictive behaviors. Thinking about it, you could probably apply this to sugar and other foods, but in that case, it would be something they CAN'T stop on their own. It's not that it's a certain food, it's that it triggers a certain behavior.
Sorry for hijacking the thread!
In addition to food, I've self-medicated with alcohol and other substances and behaviors, and there is definitely overlap. Not self-medicating with food is actually the hardest.0 -
Do you have any credible evidence that shows sugar to be as harmful as you make it out to be?
Also, can you tell me what negative impacts I am having on my body since I consume added sugar?
Other than the correlation between Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and the current obesity epidemic? or the fact that most of the people I know cant go a day without shoving something sweet into their mouths? you really have to be ignorant to believe that sugar is not bad for you and highly adictive. sure you can have coccaine in small amounts, doesn't mean you should. Ever asked yourself why you feel the need to defend sugar so much? when it really couldn't hurt to just drop it entirely?
I mean really? people here argue that sugar is neither bad nor good. so whats the constant need to eat it? why make the choice to put anything in your body that's not going to contribute to making you healthy?
This really feels similar to walking into the middle of a hardcore rave and shouting ecstasy is bad for you! haha! how many people will jump at the opportunity to defend drugs with everything they have while they high on the stuff?
you really want me to give you something to read though, maybe words from people that have been studying this subject for decades,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
and like quotes at the very end of this article, I 100% agree!Sugar scares me too, obviously. I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that’s one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can’t see — fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do.
An article based on Lustig that ends on fear rather than fact ... how does that support a position in any logical, fact based way?0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
I'm not playing the "show the study" game; unless everyone is going to start posting studies that meet the same criteria as "acceptable evidence" to support their various positions, expecting one person to back their position with studies but not the other is an exercise in futility.
My question was more curiosity than anything else, because the dictionary definitions acknowledge non-substance (i.e. non-physical) states of addiction. I don't believe that sugar is necessary harmful in and of itself, but I also don't think that everyone reacts to substances in the same way. While there may not currently be evidence of findings of meeting the physical addiction criteria, I think making a blanket statement that it's not addictive because of that and ignoring the other definition is unwise.
Part of my curiosity is that I view addiction as being a spectrum. Even with chemically addictive substances, there seems to be a range of tolerances. Some people can have one cigarette and be done, others will have one and want more. Some people can just quit cold turkey and do fine, others struggle even with the help of support groups and medical interventions. (Just to note, nicotine has been proven addictive, but plenty of people are able to stop without needed medical treatment or psychological help, so I'm not sure necessitating treatment is a good litmus for defining addiction)
It not just with addictive substances either - look at the potential side effects on medications. Not everyone experiences them, but they are listed because there is a possibility or it was reported during trials. Some women use hormonal birth control with no issues; others have horrific reactions to the hormones, and then there are people who are everywhere in between.
I'm not sure that I believe that things are all in people's heads, or that a person has to reach a Requiem for a Dream level of bottoming out for something to be considered interfering in their lives. Which is why I think there might be something to the anecdotal evidence people present. I find the BG levels particularly interesting.
I think for me, it's the fact that some people equate craving high levels of sugar to someone trying to quit smoking crack. I think we as a society tend to over-use 'addiction' as anything bad we like to do, which trivializes people with serious addiction problems. So it frustrates me when people just automatically assume they're addicted to something because too much of it is bad and they crave it. Sorry if I came off as overbearing, though! That wasn't my intention, I was just thinking I wasn't being clear in what I was saying. That happens to me a lot.
And I can see your point about addiction being a spectrum, but again, some people actually do have a disease as there's something in their brain that makes them much more likely to develop addictive behaviors. Thinking about it, you could probably apply this to sugar and other foods, but in that case, it would be something they CAN'T stop on their own. It's not that it's a certain food, it's that it triggers a certain behavior.
Sorry for hijacking the thread!
I don't think it was necessarily a hijack - I do wonder about the impetus behind these new guidelines.
It's discussed in the report. American health is adversely affected by sub-optimal nutrition and the obesity rate. Excessive added sugar both probably crowds out other foods which would be better choices and of course is related to the extreme overconsumption of calories (especially stuff like sugary soda and energy drinks).If the idea is that in encouraging people to reduce added sugars, it will lead to a decline in the obesity rates by curbing overeating, I think the research on how people react to sugar can be pertinent.
But that research has not been discussed here, and the topic of the thread isn't "how do you cut sugar?" The addiction thing came in because multiple posters jumped in either to criticize the dietary guidelines (and accuse them of being biased) because they did not recommend ELIMINATING sugar, based on the (absurd) claim that sugar is highly addictive to everyone. Beyond that, it was the usual where people insist that eating sugar doesn't work for them, which is not the topic of the thread, as I understand it.I think psulemon mentioned upthread (or maybe someplace else, I know I saw it in the last few days) that there has been evidence of overeating as it relates to foods containing sugar and fat
What does this mean? You mean that people overeat both sugar and fat? That's of course true, as is the fact that the actual studies on "food addiction" find the same responses to fat as to sugar (which I don't think is evidence of addiction personally, but that of course we seem to be biologically prone to wanting to consume calories, basically, which seems pretty unsurpising, just like that we like sex).0 -
Most of us would have to make big changes in our diets to follow the new guidelines.
Surely just cutting or substituting one can of Coke a day would put people well under the guideline?
Wouldn't call that a big change in diet.
As usual a journalist has to put a spin on things to make a headline.
Yeah, I've been cutting my added sugar since (re)starting my diet and cutting pop and fruit juice has cut most of my added sugar. I've been trying to keep my added sugar under 25g per day and without sugary drinks it's not been too difficult. I don't worry about sugars from fruit, veggies or milk. For me, the choice to limit added sugar is due to my fatty liver and the fact that diabetes runs in my family but I am still a believer in focusing first on calories.0 -
You know how I cut my added sugar? I cut my overall food intake. As the calories dropped, so did the extra sugar.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »You know how I cut my added sugar? I cut my overall food intake. As the calories dropped, so did the extra sugar.
Sounds like wizardry to me.0 -
Food tasting good is no conspiracy.0
-
-
tincanonastring wrote: »You know how I cut my added sugar? I cut my overall food intake. As the calories dropped, so did the extra sugar.
yea, but how did you lose weight if you were still eating added sugar?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »You know how I cut my added sugar? I cut my overall food intake. As the calories dropped, so did the extra sugar.
yea, but how did you lose weight if you were still eating added sugar?
Inconceivable.0 -
All carb calories are not equal. Excessive sugar is particularly bad for your health. The best practice is to get the optimal balance of protein, fats and carbs, and try to eat healthy, high fiber carbs from whole grains, etc. (just as it's better to consume healthy types of fat).0
-
jwclearman wrote: »All carb calories are not equal. Excessive sugar is particularly bad for your health. The best practice is to get the optimal balance of protein, fats and carbs, and try to eat healthy, high fiber carbs from whole grains, etc. (just as it's better to consume healthy types of fat).
please explain how all carb calories are not equal?
calories = calories in that they all provide energy; however, not all calories are nutritionally the same.0 -
jwclearman wrote: »All carb calories are not equal. Excessive sugar is particularly bad for your health. The best practice is to get the optimal balance of protein, fats and carbs, and try to eat healthy, high fiber carbs from whole grains, etc. (just as it's better to consume healthy types of fat).
You are inaccurately using "calories" as a synonym for "food," in a way that often leads to miscommunication.
A calorie is a unit of energy, and therefore a calorie is a calorie like a lb is a lb (or a dollar is a dollar -- cash is fungible).
However, obviously FOODS are not the same.
Ironically, excess sugar is often an issue because it is so often packaged in a tasty but high cal combination with refined flour and butter or other carb/fat combinations, so it seems to me a little unfair that sugar and/or carbs get ALL the credit, but so be it.
The evidence that excess sugar is worse than other excesses that involve extra calories and foods without lots of micronutrients or other things we need (beyond energy) is not particularly strong. There are studies with sweetened drinks that seem to show a possible effect, but even if that is true they are a special case, as one of the few examples where people do consume basically just a ton of sugar on its own. And also soda drinking tends to be divided into those who don't drink it or consume it only moderately and those who consume unbelievably huge amounts (this is based on Salt Sugar Fat, which talks about the importance of the heavy user to soda companies).
All this aside, in that I think eating a healthful and calorie appropriate diet is important, I support the reasonable restrictions recommended in the dietary guidelines (and tend to eat less than that).0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
The bolded is incorrect. Your body won't shut down if you stop consuming sugar.
I should have said if I cut out ALL sugars, including carbs. Without it, the brain stops functioning, which would lead to my body shutting down.
Granted, that's an extreme view, but that seems to be what some people advocate until they learn more about it.
Your body needs glucose but you don't have to eat any since it can make it itself.
Some people like to use that to mean carbs are unnecessary and should be cut down because of that.
In fact it means your body is so dependant on glucose it doesn't trust you to get enough regularly that it evolved so you don't have to.0 -
jwclearman wrote: »All carb calories are not equal. Excessive sugar is particularly bad for your health. The best practice is to get the optimal balance of protein, fats and carbs, and try to eat healthy, high fiber carbs from whole grains, etc. (just as it's better to consume healthy types of fat).
please explain how all carb calories are not equal?
calories = calories in that they all provide energy; however, not all calories are nutritionally the same.
Even better:
Not all calories come from nutritionally equal carb sources.
Are the people who say a calorie is not a calorie the same people who get all bent out of shape and say "a pound is a pound" whenever someone says muscle weighs more than fat (rather than saying it's more dense, which in common understanding translates to the same thing)?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Deliciousness.
Healthy food can be delicous. Your taste buds are fried from all the junk. You can recover from this.
They're not mutually exclusive. Or are you under the impression that if someone has, say, one item with added sugar, then that's all they eat?
Well I mean you can get away with a lot of things but they are steps down a dark path. You don't want to find out you are stuck with the negative consequences of your choices. There is a point of no return with health obviously and you don't always see it coming.
Ahhh..the ol' slippery slope logical fallacy. Or did you just perhaps recently see the new Star Wars movie?
No spoilers!!!!
Try and stop me
Star Wars spoiler below
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions