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.
Giving up sugar for good
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
(1) The poster did not say added sugar.
(2) The sugar in fruit (for example) and added sugar (sucrose) that in other things is the same, chemically (especially when your body breaks apart the sucrose), so it doesn't even make sense to claim that "sugar" means only added sugar. The arguments about sugar hurting your body would apply to all.
(I happen to agree that we shouldn't consume excessive sugar, or excessive anything else, but that's a different discussion. Or what cwolfman said upthread.)
I agree that sugar is sugar whether in fruit or a candy bar, but the fact that the sugar in fruit is packaged with nutrients and fibre makes a difference. Unless someone is talking about giving up carbs, I assume that they are talking about added sugar. The person we quoted gave three examples that each contain added sugar.
I make the argument not to pick on you lemurcat, (especially given that you are far better at the art of debate than I am), but to defend people thinking that they want to reduce added sugar in their lives as not being extremists. I would consider giving up fruit and dairy as an extreme practice.
2 -
Interesting long read by Gary Taubes in The Guardian today about sugar's addictive effects and the futility of trying to "moderate" its consumption. He also makes the interesting observation that people tend to define moderation as "whatever works for them". Anyway, it's all enough to convince me...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/05/is-sugar-worlds-most-popular-drug
I haven't read all the replies....some people get really upset when you ask them to give up sugar, but of course it is not addictive.
I eat very little added sugar...I'm just not keen on bull *kitten*. If people didn't go to these kind of extremes when talking about sugar we could in fact have an actual discussion about over consumption and that being a negative...but nah...it's always a crack discussion and it's *kitten* stupid.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
There is no withdrawal...a craving is different than withdrawal symptoms...this is just perpetuating nonsense.
Cravings are just one of the symptoms of withdrawal. People who have given up sugar also report other withdrawal symptoms, including: anger, anxiety, appetite changes, depression, dizziness, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, headaches, insomnia, irritability, mood swings, shakes, and sleep changes. Again quite similar to quitting nicotine!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29126872
It's a behavioral issue...
Back 'atcha! (:-)
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
Seriously though, I think we can agree that the medical profession is divided on the issue and there is no definitive research yet, which again is one of the points Taube's article makes...
A 2010 metastudy concluding sugar addiction is not supported by research: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
And reposting @GottaBurnEmAll 's link to the 2016 metastudy concluding sugar addiction is not supported by research:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Good links.
I am not yet convinced though that there isn't some benefit for people who have trouble moderating sugar consumption in thinking that their cravings/behaviour have similarities to an addiction. There's lots of good advice out there for alcoholics dealing with cravings and stressful situations for instance that seems useful to people trying to undo the habit of overeating sweets.
I have mixed feelings on it.
I think some of it is helpful, actually, although I also see people who claim "sugar addiction" using that term in a very different way than anyone in an addiction program for substances would (or should, anyway, people do, because people are people). Specifically, if someone said "oh, it's not my fault that I drank too much and did X, I'm an addict," people wouldn't buy it. But the whole point of the sugar addiction thing, for many, is to claim that unlike other slobs who got fat because they were undisciplined or whatever, they were ADDICTED and it's different for them.
Also, I bet many of the things that are in some ways analogous to that which would help addictive behaviors apply to ALL foods (certainly all highly palatable foods) and not sugar specifically. And to most humans, not just those who like the addiction label (which I think is pushed hard by people like Taubes and others on the internet).
Anyway, the bigger issue is that I also think it can be harmful. Even with true addictive substances, like alcohol (although alcohol addiction tends to be largely behavioral too), I think deciding you cannot drink without getting totally smashed tends to have a negative effect (usually a necessary one if you believe, as I do, that an alcoholic really can't drink normally and should give it up), often causing people to basically make the decision that they are drinking to excess every time they pick up a drink, since once they do they cannot help it.
In that there is evidence that the binge/restrict cycle plays into the development of food addictions (or whatever), so that telling yourself you cannot eat whatever (and are a bad person if you do and other such things) and then giving it up for a long time and giving in and overdoing and seeing that as confirmation, this is especially problematic. If you think just eating a bit is a failure and will make you eat a lot, that's almost always a self-confirming prophecy. So I do think it's dangerous to tell people that is true, when it probably is not, as opposed to telling them they can avoid it, but that there are behavioral triggers and work through those.
I'd still think that for many (including me) giving it up for a while might be helpful, or being careful about some of the triggers you'd hear about in AA (which are just common sense, really), like knowing you are more likely to be tempted when hungry, angry, lonely, tired, etc.
Oh, and finally, given that it's usually things YOU consider ultra palatable and not all sweets or everything (or only things) with sugar for most, I think it's a terrible idea to pretend it's all about sugar. Leads to people on MFP being scared of eating fruit or asking if a banana will hurt them.
I can't stay to continue the discussion, but I wanted to comment on the binge/restrict cycle. I have been thinking lately that my own binge/restrict cycles might have had more to do with underconsuming calories in general rather than not eating dessert. I'm not so sure that eating fewer or no sweet treats (but still eating plenty of calories, hopefully nutrient packed) will be more likely to cause me to eat sweet treats in great quantity at some point in time in the future. I think it may be the opposite.1 -
OP---you are correct and so is Gary Taubes---fully half of people in the US (and some other places) are obese or overweight, they can not control the intake of sugar/carbs food and they are having negative health impacts.
Here at MFP, we hear from many who can eat sugar/carbs within CiCo and those ppl refuse to believe that this does not work for sugar/carb addicts.
Fixed it for ya...5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
(1) The poster did not say added sugar.
(2) The sugar in fruit (for example) and added sugar (sucrose) that in other things is the same, chemically (especially when your body breaks apart the sucrose), so it doesn't even make sense to claim that "sugar" means only added sugar. The arguments about sugar hurting your body would apply to all.
(I happen to agree that we shouldn't consume excessive sugar, or excessive anything else, but that's a different discussion. Or what cwolfman said upthread.)
+1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you're giving up sugar ... give up sugar. All sugar. Start to do some research as to what contains sugar and how the body breaks nutrients down.
And where's the line?
My tinned chicken, which I eat for lunch just about every day, has a small amount of sugar listed in the ingredients ... 1 gram. It's probably added sugar of some sort. Do I give up that chicken?
Meanwhile my mango has about 34 grams of sugar just naturally. Is that OK but the chicken is not?
Both of them have other nutrients. The chicken has protein, the mango has vitamins and fibre. And the chicken is quite a bit lower in calories than the mango ... about half the calories. But the chicken has that one damning factor ... 1 gram of added sugar. Oh dear.10 -
LeileiNadine wrote: »Too much sugar makes me feel rubbish, takes my weight up (whether it's in outright sugar form or too many carbs causing my blood sugar to go cray cray) I kind of wonder if those that are singing the praises of sugar don't want to admit that they are a lil addicted, just sayin ;-)
Nobody is "singing the praises" of sugar...we are simply pointing out that it's not crack...it's not addictive. I eat very little added sugar as I eat a primarily whole foods diet...that doesn't mean I buy into a bunch of BS about something we've been consuming forever being the equivalent to crack cocaine...it's stupid.
You may also notice that the people "singing the praises" as you say...well...don't tell anyone...but most of us have been around the block a few times and had a lot of success and are pretty healthy and fit...shhhh....don't tell anyone.10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »@Ty_Floyd I find it frankly amazing how angrily people are reacting to the information you presented quite neutrally.
For me, sugar may not have been as addicting as cocaine, but since reducing it drastically from my diet (going from a ridiculous 125g or something per day!) to a more sensible 24g per day has made a world of difference in my cravings. I think there are other people for whom that is also true. Do I believe that sugar is a drug? Nah. Do I think trying to avoid it as much as possible is very beneficial *for some people* in controlling cravings? Absolutely. I'm glad I discovered people like Taubes because it helped me think hard about what sugar does to my body and make thoughtful choices about how much of it I want to consume. Maybe the article you shared will have the same impact on others. Thanks for posting it.
Because some of us have actually had friends and family members who were actually addicted to drugs...calling sugar an "addiction" and making cocaine references is pretty much just insulting to people who actually have problems that go beyond some mere cravings...
I used to self-medicate with alcohol, and other substances and behaviors, and the cravings I felt for food felt exactly the same.
They may well have felt very similar, but food cravings and true physical substance addiction aren't the same thing. That's the distinction being made here. You may well have been 'addicted' to the behavior of eating, which is a psychological issue and not a physical one.
6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
There is no withdrawal...a craving is different than withdrawal symptoms...this is just perpetuating nonsense.
Cravings are just one of the symptoms of withdrawal. People who have given up sugar also report other withdrawal symptoms, including: anger, anxiety, appetite changes, depression, dizziness, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, headaches, insomnia, irritability, mood swings, shakes, and sleep changes. Again quite similar to quitting nicotine!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29126872
It's a behavioral issue...
Back 'atcha! (:-)
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
Seriously though, I think we can agree that the medical profession is divided on the issue and there is no definitive research yet, which again is one of the points Taube's article makes...
As a mental health professional, I can state unequivocally that sugar is currently not a diagnosable addition like alcohol, drugs or gambling. So we don't agree.
There are many problem behaviors associated with the overconsumption of sugars, fats and other foods, just as there may be (for some people) concerning behaviors around the elimination of entire foods or groups of foods. Psychological or medical intervention may be helpful in supporting someone to develop new behaviors, just like with many, many things.
I just had this conversation with my sister over the holiday as she insists my nephew is addicted to playing video games online. I said he may have some behaviors which might be good to modify, but "internet addiction" isn't a thing. Of course, her perceptions of what's normal and healthy and not may be skewed because she's comparing him and what he's doing to what she and I did as kids. All we had was Pong! If we had all this tech, maybe we'd have played for hours on end, too. Though ... I do spend a lot of time on here.
I worked with addicts for many years and believe the "addiction" term is thrown around too much and inaccurately. For me, it seems to make light, albeit inadvertently, of the struggles of those who truly are suffering from addiction.
I keep carbs things and chips out of the house because I tend to overeat them. But my lack of restraint is not tantamount to addiction. And to call it anything other than a personal lack of self control is me kidding myself and not taking responsibility for my behavior.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
(1) The poster did not say added sugar.
(2) The sugar in fruit (for example) and added sugar (sucrose) that in other things is the same, chemically (especially when your body breaks apart the sucrose), so it doesn't even make sense to claim that "sugar" means only added sugar. The arguments about sugar hurting your body would apply to all.
(I happen to agree that we shouldn't consume excessive sugar, or excessive anything else, but that's a different discussion. Or what cwolfman said upthread.)
+1
If you're giving up sugar ... give up sugar. All sugar. Start to do some research as to what contains sugar and how the body breaks nutrients down.
It's the MFP paradox: high carbers push people to embrace no-carb/carnivorism. I would say they are also pretty successful...
0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »http://www.rense.com/general50/killer.htm
a really good read. I just know if I have anything with aspartame in it. I'm too sick to do anything. I stopped getting severe migraines.
You're projecting your own issues here though-many people, including myself, can consume aspartame with no problems at all. My daughter is lactose intolerant and cannot handle most dairy products. She'd never go around telling people that dairy is bad though because it's not. Her body just doesn't handle it very well. Same with my sister-in-law who's allergic to all sorts of foods, including 'good' ones like tomatoes and cruciferous vegetables. Just because her body can't deal with them doesn't mean we should all cut out tomatoes and broccoli.
Someone else already posted this but seriously-it's worth the time to read through it
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
The same way they projected their issues over the peanut allergy forcing companies to go peanut free. What about the people who are not allergic to peanuts?? Was it fair to them or are people that lazy in not reading the packages?
I can't chew gum anymore, I can't even enjoy certain foods anymore because the way aspartame makes me feel, headache, nausea, dizzy, so sick that I can't eat anything and I'm practically in a coma for fourteen hours.
They should deprive the world of aspartame like they deprived the world of peanut butter products.
The reason I can't give up sugar completely is because my blood sugar drops to dangerous levels without it.
1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
(1) The poster did not say added sugar.
(2) The sugar in fruit (for example) and added sugar (sucrose) that in other things is the same, chemically (especially when your body breaks apart the sucrose), so it doesn't even make sense to claim that "sugar" means only added sugar. The arguments about sugar hurting your body would apply to all.
(I happen to agree that we shouldn't consume excessive sugar, or excessive anything else, but that's a different discussion. Or what cwolfman said upthread.)
+1
If you're giving up sugar ... give up sugar. All sugar. Start to do some research as to what contains sugar and how the body breaks nutrients down.
It's the MFP paradox: high carbers push people to embrace no-carb/carnivorism. I would say they are also pretty successful...
Say what? I'm not a "high carber" or a low carber - like many people in this thread, I lost my 75 lbs two years ago through moderation, not elimination.
I love my sugars *and* fats, but realized that the combination of the two provides a delicious but caloric whammy that needs to be eaten moderately within a diet structure that satisfies not only my appetite but my macro needs as well. 6 -
goldthistime wrote: »Another year another sugar thread...sad part is all the folks trying to give up all sugars will probably never reach their goals as they given power to a substance that is not inherently bad, barring a medical condition..,
The Success Forum has lots of keto and lchf success stories.
You could say that I have "given power" to sugar by recognizing the unique difficulties I have when I consume it in certain situations. Yet I've been successful. In fact, I would say that part of my success has been in figuring out how and when I can consume sugar without letting my overconsuming tendencies take over.
even low carbs and ketoers eat sugar....1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I just find the good/bad labels on foods/macros unhelpful. It led me to feeling ashamed of myself every time I ate something "bad". Changing that mindset, changed my life.8 -
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
why would you avoid added sugar and embrace "natural" sugar, when sugar = sugar?3 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Firstly, people don't overeat just on sweet foods.
Secondly, alcohol creates an actual, physical addiction to it.
Interestingly, I just read a report stating that solving this problem of "sugar addiction" (or whatever name you choose to give it) is actually more complicated than solving drug addiction.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
Because it's very difficult to solve a problem that doesn't exist.8 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
(1) The poster did not say added sugar.
(2) The sugar in fruit (for example) and added sugar (sucrose) that in other things is the same, chemically (especially when your body breaks apart the sucrose), so it doesn't even make sense to claim that "sugar" means only added sugar. The arguments about sugar hurting your body would apply to all.
(I happen to agree that we shouldn't consume excessive sugar, or excessive anything else, but that's a different discussion. Or what cwolfman said upthread.)
+1
If you're giving up sugar ... give up sugar. All sugar. Start to do some research as to what contains sugar and how the body breaks nutrients down.
It's the MFP paradox: high carbers push people to embrace no-carb/carnivorism. I would say they are also pretty successful...
I don't know any high carbers...if anything, I'd say most of the people posting eat high protein diets or moderate amounts of all three macros. I'm pretty balanced myself as I see no need for extremes...4 -
@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?2
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »
Nobody is "singing the praises" of sugar...we are simply pointing out that it's not crack...it's not addictive. I eat very little added sugar as I eat a primarily whole foods diet...that doesn't mean I buy into a bunch of BS about something we've been consuming forever being the equivalent to crack cocaine...it's stupid.
You may also notice that the people "singing the praises" as you say...well...don't tell anyone...but most of us have been around the block a few times and had a lot of success and are pretty healthy and fit...shhhh....don't tell anyone.
Yup This is the biggest reason why I hang out on MFP vs other weight/fitness sites. MFP has a very large group of people who are successfully maintaining weight losses long term, and are also very successful in their health and fitness goals. You'd think more people would want to tap into that and actually pay attention to what these people are saying and learn a few things from them.
Mods-there should be Jedi Knight badges or something for us 'old timers' We're like thin Yodas
9 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »http://www.rense.com/general50/killer.htm
a really good read. I just know if I have anything with aspartame in it. I'm too sick to do anything. I stopped getting severe migraines.
You're projecting your own issues here though-many people, including myself, can consume aspartame with no problems at all. My daughter is lactose intolerant and cannot handle most dairy products. She'd never go around telling people that dairy is bad though because it's not. Her body just doesn't handle it very well. Same with my sister-in-law who's allergic to all sorts of foods, including 'good' ones like tomatoes and cruciferous vegetables. Just because her body can't deal with them doesn't mean we should all cut out tomatoes and broccoli.
Someone else already posted this but seriously-it's worth the time to read through it
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
The same way they projected their issues over the peanut allergy forcing companies to go peanut free. What about the people who are not allergic to peanuts?? Was it fair to them or are people that lazy in not reading the packages?
I can't chew gum anymore, I can't even enjoy certain foods anymore because the way aspartame makes me feel, headache, nausea, dizzy, so sick that I can't eat anything and I'm practically in a coma for fourteen hours.
They should deprive the world of aspartame like they deprived the world of peanut butter products.
The reason I can't give up sugar completely is because my blood sugar drops to dangerous levels without it.
So your reaction to aspartame is the same as anaphylactic shock that peanuts can cause? Um OK. Plus peanuts aren't banned. You can still buy plenty of peanut products. Also it isn't about being lazy or reading labels. There are tons of issues with cross contamination so that even foods made without peanuts on the label can be contaminated with peanuts.
4 -
Do you even know what the chemical make up of aspartame is? If so, explain how it's derived from weed killer? Consequently cancer may be higher for a couple of reasons: Weight related issues and an aging population being kept alive longer due to medical technology.
if that's true then why wasn't cancer higher 300 years a go verses now?masterscallit wrote: »We're all gonna die. I read this article and it scared the *kitten* out of me. Apparently there was a lot of resistance from the medical community in the past about the destruction and cancer-causing effects sugar creates in the body. I NEED HELP kicking sugar. It's so hard man.
Too much of one thing is not good for you. Moderation is okay. In the last twenty years cancer is up, so is the amount of aspartame (derived from weed killer. And you wonder why people are realizing its not such a good idea to consume it after all), preservatives in the food to make it last longer on the shelves. The amount of chemicals found in our water that causes people to get sick. May I go on?
If you're really worried about it, drink more tea, put lemon in your water. It's been known to help your body become an inhospitable environment for cancer cells to grow. (Doctors don't want their patients to know that. Otherwise they would be out of a job.)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions