Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
Eating until you are full and satisfied and then not eating again until you're hungry is not a problem. It's a normal appetite and it's working exactly like it should.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.14 -
...point is that you can over eat anything and there will be consequences of some sort. It makes humans feel better to point the finger, that powdered sugar coated finger, at the culprit. It's funny that at the same time that bacon, cheese coated finger was shoving a tasty morsel down my throat, it was pointing directly at me. It doesn't matter what my particular food weakness was, it was me and only me guiding that food down my throat. Let's see a news story about people who have taken responsibility over their fat, salt, sugar craving brains by paying attention to the calories! It sure feels a lot more empowering than, "whine, it's not my fault, whine." I'm tired of seeing city governments everywhere thinking they're making some sort of difference by taxing sodas or taking all the "bad" choices out of their vending machines. It's utter nonsense and it only serves to keep people fat and in denial.10
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
I don't know about that. It's about the equivalent of someone saving room/calories at a healthy meal so they can still have dessert. I highly doubt nuts or cheese is problem alternative. A cup of nuts at 3:00 is not really less healthy than a steak and broccoli with cheese sauce at 5:00.
It's gonna have different nutrients.
But I know for a FACT, that if someone posted they regularly reduce their dinner calories or completely skip it so they can eat more twinkies during the day, people on here would be all up in that.
Again, Twinkies are different than a bowl of macadamia nuts with coconut... At least in my eyes.
ETA that most meals do have different nutrients.
It's both a lot of calories for fairly limited nutrition. They're both treats, I don't think anyone sees a handful of macadamia's as equivalent to a meal and apart from the fat content it isn't particularly going to aid your nutrition goals.AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
Eating until you are full and satisfied and then not eating again until you're hungry is not a problem. It's a normal appetite and it's working exactly like it should.
If you're skipping meals to fit in more treats that's not exactly how it should be.6 -
makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.6 -
Okay then... That's more rigid than my usual approach to food, and I'm keto, but it that works for you, great.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
I don't know about that. It's about the equivalent of someone saving room/calories at a healthy meal so they can still have dessert. I highly doubt nuts or cheese is problem alternative. A cup of nuts at 3:00 is not really less healthy than a steak and broccoli with cheese sauce at 5:00.
It's gonna have different nutrients.
But I know for a FACT, that if someone posted they regularly reduce their dinner calories or completely skip it so they can eat more twinkies during the day, people on here would be all up in that.
Again, Twinkies are different than a bowl of macadamia nuts with coconut... At least in my eyes.
ETA that most meals do have different nutrients.
It's both a lot of calories for fairly limited nutrition. They're both treats, I don't think anyone sees a handful of macadamia's as equivalent to a meal and apart from the fat content it isn't particularly going to aid your nutrition goals.AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
Eating until you are full and satisfied and then not eating again until you're hungry is not a problem. It's a normal appetite and it's working exactly like it should.
If you're skipping meals to fit in more treats that's not exactly how it should be.
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
I don't know about that. It's about the equivalent of someone saving room/calories at a healthy meal so they can still have dessert. I highly doubt nuts or cheese is problem alternative. A cup of nuts at 3:00 is not really less healthy than a steak and broccoli with cheese sauce at 5:00.
It's gonna have different nutrients.
But I know for a FACT, that if someone posted they regularly reduce their dinner calories or completely skip it so they can eat more twinkies during the day, people on here would be all up in that.
Again, Twinkies are different than a bowl of macadamia nuts with coconut... At least in my eyes.
ETA that most meals do have different nutrients.
Yawn - nutritional make up is different but that is all...
I see we still can't grasp that concept...
The concept that people would criticize a meal of twinkies but not an early dinner of nuts with coconut? Please clarify so we get it.3 -
Okay then... That's more rigid than my usual approach to food, and I'm keto, but it that works for you, great.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
I don't know about that. It's about the equivalent of someone saving room/calories at a healthy meal so they can still have dessert. I highly doubt nuts or cheese is problem alternative. A cup of nuts at 3:00 is not really less healthy than a steak and broccoli with cheese sauce at 5:00.
It's gonna have different nutrients.
But I know for a FACT, that if someone posted they regularly reduce their dinner calories or completely skip it so they can eat more twinkies during the day, people on here would be all up in that.
Again, Twinkies are different than a bowl of macadamia nuts with coconut... At least in my eyes.
ETA that most meals do have different nutrients.
It's both a lot of calories for fairly limited nutrition. They're both treats, I don't think anyone sees a handful of macadamia's as equivalent to a meal and apart from the fat content it isn't particularly going to aid your nutrition goals.AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
Eating until you are full and satisfied and then not eating again until you're hungry is not a problem. It's a normal appetite and it's working exactly like it should.
If you're skipping meals to fit in more treats that's not exactly how it should be.
I'm just going to repeat that if someone said they're regularly overeating Twinkies (or whatever treat you want to substitute for that. Chips, ice cream, whatever) and skipping meals to keep doing it without going over their calories, all hell would break loose in MFP land.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
I don't know about that. It's about the equivalent of someone saving room/calories at a healthy meal so they can still have dessert. I highly doubt nuts or cheese is problem alternative. A cup of nuts at 3:00 is not really less healthy than a steak and broccoli with cheese sauce at 5:00.
It's gonna have different nutrients.
But I know for a FACT, that if someone posted they regularly reduce their dinner calories or completely skip it so they can eat more twinkies during the day, people on here would be all up in that.
Again, Twinkies are different than a bowl of macadamia nuts with coconut... At least in my eyes.
ETA that most meals do have different nutrients.
Yawn - nutritional make up is different but that is all...
I see we still can't grasp that concept...
The concept that people would criticize a meal of twinkies but not an early dinner of nuts with coconut? Please clarify so we get it.
I have many times and I see no need to repeat myself...
Keep believing sugar is the devil....3 -
The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
This was me too.... EXACTLY me. Sugar is a problem for MANY people. It's the typical response here to dismiss this. I was addicted and experienced fairly severe withdrawal symptoms for several days when I cut it from my diet. I persevered and do not crave it now. I have only been off sugar for 4 and a half months but I have dropped 54 pounds, 34 inches and have much more energy than I ever did. It is so much a typical response here to blame the overeater for lack of willpower. It is a vicious cycle that is infinitely hard to break for many. Your feelings of superiority are not deserved.9 -
That one has keto flu when cutting carbs does not = withdrawal.9
-
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
And some have preferences for other foods and overeat those other foods. I don't get why overeating sugar or having a preference for sugary foods (which is really what I think it is) is somehow more special or worse or more difficult to deal with than having a preference for various other foods.
I mean, I often joke about how easy it is for me to overeat Indian food. No added sugar that I'm aware of in my favorite items. I also love a variety of other foods. For example, I overdid tapas on Saturday, but had run over 14 miles earlier in the day so wasn't too fussed about it. Yet I don't insist this means there's a Spanish Conspiracy (although I think Thomas Kyd may have written about it), nor that those who aren't prone to overeat delicious tapas or naan or vindaloo are therefore "lucky" and have it somehow easier.18 -
Trying not to hurt anybody's feelings here, but the practicality of the matter is that tracking and limiting sugar and carbs in general has proven to be a relatively easy method to implement for many who have otherwise failed.
The simple nature of such the plan means its practitioners do not have to hold a high amount of nutritional knowledge. All many know is that they cut carbs or sugar specifically and lost weight. They might claim to have been able to eat all they wanted, and that may actually have been true, but it doesn't mean they ate at a surplus. Some of these folks who know no better might surmise that "sugar is the devil" and run around on MFP to evangelize it. I guess it's a good thing there's so many people on here willing to seek out those posts and contradict them almost as quickly as they appear... or sometimes before.
Ultimately though, I think anybody who who tries to posit that a single method should be prescribed to all should be regarded with skepticism. And those types of people fall on all sides of these debates.
Get it in where you fit in. Do you. Forget everyone else.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Okay then... That's more rigid than my usual approach to food, and I'm keto, but it that works for you, great.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
I don't know about that. It's about the equivalent of someone saving room/calories at a healthy meal so they can still have dessert. I highly doubt nuts or cheese is problem alternative. A cup of nuts at 3:00 is not really less healthy than a steak and broccoli with cheese sauce at 5:00.
It's gonna have different nutrients.
But I know for a FACT, that if someone posted they regularly reduce their dinner calories or completely skip it so they can eat more twinkies during the day, people on here would be all up in that.
Again, Twinkies are different than a bowl of macadamia nuts with coconut... At least in my eyes.
ETA that most meals do have different nutrients.
It's both a lot of calories for fairly limited nutrition. They're both treats, I don't think anyone sees a handful of macadamia's as equivalent to a meal and apart from the fat content it isn't particularly going to aid your nutrition goals.AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
I'd say if your overeating of cheese and nuts makes you skip a meal later on to still fit IT IS A PROBLEM.
Eating until you are full and satisfied and then not eating again until you're hungry is not a problem. It's a normal appetite and it's working exactly like it should.
If you're skipping meals to fit in more treats that's not exactly how it should be.
I'm just going to repeat that if someone said they're regularly overeating Twinkies (or whatever treat you want to substitute for that. Chips, ice cream, whatever) and skipping meals to keep doing it without going over their calories, all hell would break loose in MFP land.
For twinkies, you are probably right.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
And some have preferences for other foods and overeat those other foods. I don't get why overeating sugar or having a preference for sugary foods (which is really what I think it is) is somehow more special or worse or more difficult to deal with than having a preference for various other foods.
I mean, I often joke about how easy it is for me to overeat Indian food. No added sugar that I'm aware of in my favorite items. I also love a variety of other foods. For example, I overdid tapas on Saturday, but had run over 14 miles earlier in the day so wasn't too fussed about it. Yet I don't insist this means there's a Spanish Conspiracy (although I think Thomas Kyd may have written about it), nor that those who aren't prone to overeat delicious tapas or naan or vindaloo are therefore "lucky" and have it somehow easier.
I don't know that it is just a preference though. That is part of my point. For some of us, we experience negative earth consequences even while continuing to eat it every day. I had something sugary everyday. I would try not to eat it too early in the day or it would turn into more sugary things. When I had it i felt better for a bit, then I had my hypoglycaemic reactions and felt worse. as well I gained weight more easily after I became IR if I ate sugary foods, and cutting back resulted in not feeling well for me too, even when I was not low carb.
I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
5 -
makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.4 -
Trying not to hurt anybody's feelings here, but the practicality of the matter is that tracking and limiting sugar and carbs in general has proven to be a relatively easy method to implement for many who have otherwise failed.
Sure, and other methods work for others.
None of that supports the idea of sugar as uniquely a problem or a "sugar conspiracy," which is what the discussion in this thread is about.
I think nutritional knowledge is valuable independent from whether it is necessary to lose weight (which obviously it is not). I think demonizing individual components of a diet because YOU may find them particularly tempting also is a bad idea and not generalizable (not everyone finds sugar the most tempting ingredient, and that DOESN'T mean those people have it lots easier or are different in kind when it comes to obesity/overweight), which is what my point was. "Lucky" has nothing to do with it, and liking sugar (even a super lot, even plain old sugar without fat) doesn't make you less responsible for the outcome (such that it's BigSugar's fault, anymore than my issue can be blamed on the local Indian place, which would be absurd).
Not claiming anyone in this thread is making the last argument, but I see it on MFP all the time and people use Lustig for it.5 -
I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
I read similar undertones in the sort of response you are addressing as well as others we see in every one of these sugar threads, things like,
"Maybe you don't have an issue with sugar but for those of us that do, it triggers something in us that we just can't stop eating it"
"I think sugar is an issue for all women, because of our hormones and other biological differences, it makes us crave it"
"It's great that you can eat sugar in moderation and have lost weight eating it, but for those of us that can't, we have to find alternate strategies"
"Everyone is different, just because you don't struggle with sugar doesn't mean it's not addictive. Not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic"
I agree that what these comments seem to imply is that identifying sugar as your weak point somehow puts you in a completely different situation and that the way that you have to learn to be successful is completely different than others who are "lucky" in that they don't feel or claim to feel addicted to sugar. As if learning to moderate intake of all foods, figuring out how to work in foods you love and still meet your weight loss goals, addressing the habitual/behavioral cues that tell you "hey the food is right there, might as well eat it" when at a conference, is EASY or at least EASIER than what someone who self identifies as a sugar addict, or even just that they want to cut down on sugar, goes through.
That last situation is totally me this week. I'm attending a conference, out of my element, not able to plan meals and get in regular workouts. There is food everywhere, hot buffet breakfast and lunch, continental breakfast outside the meeting room, mid morning they swap that out for granola bars, fruit and yogurt, mid afternoon they put out cookies, veggies, and a hot savory snack along with chips and candy bars. In the evening out all carte meal includes an appetizer, salad, entree and dessert. Way more than I would eat at this point in my life after everything I've learned on MFP. All free and all right in front of me, and I am totally struggling. I have fallen right back in the mindset of, "it's there, it's free, I might as well eat it" that I had before I lost weight. It's been rough and I'm mad at myself for it. Am i claiming that this is harder for mento deal with than what others have to learn in order to be successful? No. But it is hard, and the insinuation that those of us don't claim sugar as a weakness don't ever struggle, or find moderation "easy" is tiresome.
26 -
rankinsect wrote: »What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.
100g is a sniff over the EU's RDI and is Canada's proposed daily goal for total sugars, so that's not high sugar..
25% of calories is probably closer to high sugar, say 150 grams/day for a maintainer. A population level of 65 kg/head/year refined sugar consumption would be a high one, that's a mean of 178g/day.
The prize for ironic weight loss product of the year goes to Protein Sparing Modified Fast products formulated from whey protein and sucrose.0 -
If you're consistently eating close to 15% or more of your daily calories from added sugar, I would count that as a high sugar diet.rankinsect wrote: »makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.
4 -
My weakness has been and I assume always will be "crunchy salty". Popcorn, pretzels, potato chips, doritos, salted caramel chocolate with crunchy bits, chocolate covered pretzels, salted nuts, heck I can go to town on a plate of salted cucumber slices. This is what played the biggest part in my becoming overweight - Not because "crunchy salty" is inherently bad for me, not because I was addicted to it, but because once I got started I ate WAY too much. I have gotten it under control by strict portion control and habit modification strategies. I like sugar just fine, some would say I have a sweet tooth, but I have never had a problem with mindlessly overeating it, which is what happens with "salty crunchy" for me.
So no, I don't believe sugar is especially "addictive" or more at fault for the obesity epidemic than any other yummy characteristic of food. Of course, if sugar is your weakness and you eat too much because of it, cutting back will help you lose weight. For me it was"salty crunchy". For a friend of mine it was specifically pasta. For others it is fat. I sometimes still have a stressful day that leads to me eating an entire bag of PopChips and feeling sick and stupid afterward, but despite the fact that it's difficult, I put on my big-girl pants and get back on track.
People need to stop looking for a scapegoat - be honest about your weaknesses and own them, take responsibility for them, and fix them.14 -
I gained my weight eating out regularly, mostly fast foods and Mexican food high in fat. I love sweets, but I never overate on sweet treats on the regular. I did have a small treat of chocolate or ice cream or the like nightly. I lost all of that weight and have maintained it for years through primarily portion control and changing what I ate to fit in more filling foods. I still eat fast food nearly daily, and have a sweet treat nightly, but I just make smart choices and fit it into my overall diet.2
-
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
I read similar undertones in the sort of response you are addressing as well as others we see in every one of these sugar threads, things like,
"Maybe you don't have an issue with sugar but for those of us that do, it triggers something in us that we just can't stop eating it"
"I think sugar is an issue for all women, because of our hormones and other biological differences, it makes us crave it"
"It's great that you can eat sugar in moderation and have lost weight eating it, but for those of us that can't, we have to find alternate strategies"
"Everyone is different, just because you don't struggle with sugar doesn't mean it's not addictive. Not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic"
I agree that what these comments seem to imply is that identifying sugar as your weak point somehow puts you in a completely different situation and that the way that you have to learn to be successful is completely different than others who are "lucky" in that they don't feel or claim to feel addicted to sugar. As if learning to moderate intake of all foods, figuring out how to work in foods you love and still meet your weight loss goals, addressing the habitual/behavioral cues that tell you "hey the food is right there, might as well eat it" when at a conference, is EASY or at least EASIER than what someone who self identifies as a sugar addict, or even just that they want to cut down on sugar, goes through.
That last situation is totally me this week. I'm attending a conference, out of my element, not able to plan meals and get in regular workouts. There is food everywhere, hot buffet breakfast and lunch, continental breakfast outside the meeting room, mid morning they swap that out for granola bars, fruit and yogurt, mid afternoon they put out cookies, veggies, and a hot savory snack along with chips and candy bars. In the evening out all carte meal includes an appetizer, salad, entree and dessert. Way more than I would eat at this point in my life after everything I've learned on MFP. All free and all right in front of me, and I am totally struggling. I have fallen right back in the mindset of, "it's there, it's free, I might as well eat it" that I had before I lost weight. It's been rough and I'm mad at myself for it. Am i claiming that this is harder for mento deal with than what others have to learn in order to be successful? No. But it is hard, and the insinuation that those of us don't claim sugar as a weakness don't ever struggle, or find moderation "easy" is tiresome.
I consider myself supremely lucky that I figured out that carbs were the culprit for me. By simply restricting them I can now eat as much as I like and maintain the weight I was when I was 16 (I'm 35) without having to count calories or go hungry. I don't think others have it harder than me. I think I have it easier. If I stick with LCHF foods, weight loss and maintenance are easy, fun even. It was supremely hard for me to lose weight when I was eating a lot of carbs (all carbs, with the exception of fiber break down into sugar, so to me sugar and carbs are synonymous, and they all treat me the same way - bad). My history is much like @nvmomketo 's - strong family history of type 2 diabetes (many were early onset), heart disease, Alzheimer's, metabolic syndrome, and IR; personal history of hypoglycemia (so bad I'd often experience syncope, scary stuff); and the ability to consume enormous calories of high carb foods, and yet still be hungry or be hungry a short time later. Simple calorie counting, eating a diet based on the USDA guidelines worked for me in my twenties (to a point, I found it impossible to reduce my calories low enough to get into the "normal" bmi range, but I was only slightly above it). Once I hit my thirties, no dice. That is, until I went LC. Then more weight than I ever dreamed of losing flew off effortlessly. Almost like I flipped a switch and hit on exactly what my body needs. Do I think there is a conspiracy? No. Never attribute to malice that which is more readily explained by ignorance. The fact is, many people can and do tolerate high carb diets, but many others don't. That ability varies person to person, and varies over one's lifespan. I'm lucky to be someone who doesn't tolerate sugar - it makes managing weight much simpler than it ever has been before in my life.
7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
I read similar undertones in the sort of response you are addressing as well as others we see in every one of these sugar threads, things like,
"Maybe you don't have an issue with sugar but for those of us that do, it triggers something in us that we just can't stop eating it"
"I think sugar is an issue for all women, because of our hormones and other biological differences, it makes us crave it"
"It's great that you can eat sugar in moderation and have lost weight eating it, but for those of us that can't, we have to find alternate strategies"
"Everyone is different, just because you don't struggle with sugar doesn't mean it's not addictive. Not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic"
I agree that what these comments seem to imply is that identifying sugar as your weak point somehow puts you in a completely different situation and that the way that you have to learn to be successful is completely different than others who are "lucky" in that they don't feel or claim to feel addicted to sugar. As if learning to moderate intake of all foods, figuring out how to work in foods you love and still meet your weight loss goals, addressing the habitual/behavioral cues that tell you "hey the food is right there, might as well eat it" when at a conference, is EASY or at least EASIER than what someone who self identifies as a sugar addict, or even just that they want to cut down on sugar, goes through.
That last situation is totally me this week. I'm attending a conference, out of my element, not able to plan meals and get in regular workouts. There is food everywhere, hot buffet breakfast and lunch, continental breakfast outside the meeting room, mid morning they swap that out for granola bars, fruit and yogurt, mid afternoon they put out cookies, veggies, and a hot savory snack along with chips and candy bars. In the evening out all carte meal includes an appetizer, salad, entree and dessert. Way more than I would eat at this point in my life after everything I've learned on MFP. All free and all right in front of me, and I am totally struggling. I have fallen right back in the mindset of, "it's there, it's free, I might as well eat it" that I had before I lost weight. It's been rough and I'm mad at myself for it. Am i claiming that this is harder for mento deal with than what others have to learn in order to be successful? No. But it is hard, and the insinuation that those of us don't claim sugar as a weakness don't ever struggle, or find moderation "easy" is tiresome.
Hmm. I perceive the opposite from those types of statements. If someone says they run 5 miles a day to lose weight and I say "It's great that you can run for that long and have lost weight doing it, but for those of us that can't, we have to find alternate strategies." does that imply that it is easy to run 5 miles?
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I agree that what these comments seem to imply is that identifying sugar as your weak point somehow puts you in a completely different situation and that the way that you have to learn to be successful is completely different than others who are "lucky" in that they don't feel or claim to feel addicted to sugar. As if learning to moderate intake of all foods, figuring out how to work in foods you love and still meet your weight loss goals, addressing the habitual/behavioral cues that tell you "hey the food is right there, might as well eat it" when at a conference, is EASY or at least EASIER than what someone who self identifies as a sugar addict, or even just that they want to cut down on sugar, goes through.
Everything-in-moderation-don't-deprive-yourself-learn-how-to-eat-like-a-normal-person way of dieting was the hard bit - and ultimately unsustainable because it never got easier and required my full attention. Finding out that carbs/sugar are my problem was the lucky bit. Insanely hard at first but pretty much easy peasy ever after.10 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I agree that what these comments seem to imply is that identifying sugar as your weak point somehow puts you in a completely different situation and that the way that you have to learn to be successful is completely different than others who are "lucky" in that they don't feel or claim to feel addicted to sugar. As if learning to moderate intake of all foods, figuring out how to work in foods you love and still meet your weight loss goals, addressing the habitual/behavioral cues that tell you "hey the food is right there, might as well eat it" when at a conference, is EASY or at least EASIER than what someone who self identifies as a sugar addict, or even just that they want to cut down on sugar, goes through.
Everything-in-moderation-don't-deprive-yourself-learn-how-to-eat-like-a-normal-person way of dieting was the hard bit - and ultimately unsustainable because it never got easier and required my full attention. Finding out that carbs/sugar are my problem was the lucky bit. Insanely hard at first but pretty much easy peasy ever after.
You said it far more succinctly than I did, but yes. This. This so much!
5 -
No one is arguing against you considering yourself lucky or even that cutting way down on sugar might work well for certain people, so I feel like the latest responses are to something not said. The argument was against the Lustig sugar is THE problem, period, stuff, and ketomom's assertion that overweight people come in two categories, those who just overeat (lucky ones!) and those who couldn't help it 'til they cut out sugar, because the sugar made them do it, and overeating sugar is completely different and much more uncontrollable than overeating other foods (for everyone, as those who don't find sugar special just don't get it or face that level of unbearable temptation).
But that's cool.15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
I read similar undertones in the sort of response you are addressing as well as others we see in every one of these sugar threads, things like,
"Maybe you don't have an issue with sugar but for those of us that do, it triggers something in us that we just can't stop eating it"
"I think sugar is an issue for all women, because of our hormones and other biological differences, it makes us crave it"
"It's great that you can eat sugar in moderation and have lost weight eating it, but for those of us that can't, we have to find alternate strategies"
"Everyone is different, just because you don't struggle with sugar doesn't mean it's not addictive. Not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic"
I agree that what these comments seem to imply is that identifying sugar as your weak point somehow puts you in a completely different situation and that the way that you have to learn to be successful is completely different than others who are "lucky" in that they don't feel or claim to feel addicted to sugar. As if learning to moderate intake of all foods, figuring out how to work in foods you love and still meet your weight loss goals, addressing the habitual/behavioral cues that tell you "hey the food is right there, might as well eat it" when at a conference, is EASY or at least EASIER than what someone who self identifies as a sugar addict, or even just that they want to cut down on sugar, goes through.
That last situation is totally me this week. I'm attending a conference, out of my element, not able to plan meals and get in regular workouts. There is food everywhere, hot buffet breakfast and lunch, continental breakfast outside the meeting room, mid morning they swap that out for granola bars, fruit and yogurt, mid afternoon they put out cookies, veggies, and a hot savory snack along with chips and candy bars. In the evening out all carte meal includes an appetizer, salad, entree and dessert. Way more than I would eat at this point in my life after everything I've learned on MFP. All free and all right in front of me, and I am totally struggling. I have fallen right back in the mindset of, "it's there, it's free, I might as well eat it" that I had before I lost weight. It's been rough and I'm mad at myself for it. Am i claiming that this is harder for mento deal with than what others have to learn in order to be successful? No. But it is hard, and the insinuation that those of us don't claim sugar as a weakness don't ever struggle, or find moderation "easy" is tiresome.
You are having a rough week. I would find that situation challenging too.
I don't understand why discussing having trouble with moderating sugary foods translates into "no one else has trouble moderating other foods". Why can't some people have trouble with sugary foods and others have troubles with other foods?
You said you are having a hard time this week. I don't think you are saying you have it harder than anyone else. Why do you assume differently when someone says they are having a hard time?5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No one is arguing against you considering yourself lucky or even that cutting way down on sugar might work well for certain people, so I feel like the latest responses are to something not said. The argument was against the Lustig sugar is THE problem, period, stuff, and ketomom's assertion that overweight people come in two categories, those who just overeat (lucky ones! piggy though they are) and those who couldn't help it 'til they cut out sugar, because the sugar made them do it, and overeating sugar is completely different and much more uncontrollable than overeating other foods (for everyone, as those who don't find sugar special just don't get it or face that level of unbearable temptation).
But that's cool.
I think you're reading way too much into it. We ALL overate. Some people find simply counting calories and keeping macros more "balanced" (which somehow always seems to mean that carbs represent the biggest portion, but whatever) works. Awesome. You're lucky to have found something that works for you. Other people find that too many carbs triggers swings in blood glucose levels that trigger false hunger - you may still be physically "full" but the sudden drastic drop in blood sugar sends a signal to your brain that you need to eat - but if that false hunger is ignored, we literally hit the floor (I used to have to keep a tin of altoids in my car; not because I was worried about my breath, but because I was worried about having a hypo episode behind the wheel - I can go from vaguely hungry to dizzy and shakey to actually fainting in a span of 15 minutes; one of my biggest fears was experiencing this behind the wheel and killing myself or someone else). Cutting the carbs means no more high highs and, more importantly, no more low lows. Awesome. We're lucky to have found something that works for us.
If you like what you are doing and are happy with the results, awesome! Keep doing it! Its not a competition over who had it the hardest. It's about finding what works best for you. We all have to limit something (be it carbs, fat, calories). The trick is to find what is easiest for you to limit.
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions