Anyone else doing a sugar free diet?
Replies
-
paulwatts747 wrote: »As far as is possible, I'm avoiding refined sugar. I do have some fruit though and certainly have carbs, mostly rice but some bread too (which I know contains some sugar). My daily sugar intake is currently averaging about 50-60g ,on an intake of approx 2000 calories/day. This is 12-15 teaspoons of sugar a day, for someone trying to minimise it. I do avoid anything sweetened with added sugar. It may not be strictly toxic, but it is definitely not good to consume something that the liver turns immediately into fat, when you are carrying large amounts of fat around already.
If you are nice and svelte, you can consume all the sugar you like as long as you burn it off.
Wrong again ..the only thing that goes straight to fat is excess calories....
Are you really saying that added sugar goes straight to fat but natural sugars don't???7 -
Our house has been "no added sugar" for quite sometime. It was hard at first, but once I got the hang of shopping and finding key staples (like canned beans and canned tomatoes) it was pretty easy. We have a Trader Joe's near us and they have many no sugar added canned goods. I just shop the perimeter of the store usually and the freezer aisle for flash frozen vegetables. I buy my spice mixes from www.penzeys.com and I don't miss store bought sauces / mixes at all.
What I have noticed is that when I rarely do have something (like a slice of pie or cake at a friend's house or as part of a restaurant birthday celebration) I notice *all* of the flavors in the dessert, not just the sugar. I can't eat much of it either. Just a few bites and I am completely done.
I do think that in certain instances, specifically due to dehydration from fevers / flu, that sugar is necessary for medical reasons and I do keep a small amount in the house for that.2 -
day 8 of sugar free! cooked all my meals for the most part, ate egg & turkey bacon for lunch yesterday outside, but it wasn't bad! whee!3
-
something's wrong with my blog so it hasn't been allowing me to post my new diaries, guess ill post here until that's fixed1
-
Wrong again ..the only thing that goes straight to fat is excess calories....
Are you really saying that added sugar goes straight to fat but natural sugars don't???
Cane sugar (sucrose) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup is over 50% fructose (typically 55-65%). Honey is 40% fructose. The glucose in sucrose or HFCS is firstly used by the liver to produce insulin, which provides energy, and is stored in the liver and the muscles. There is a limit to how much can be stored, and any excess glucose, and every skerrick of the fructose, is stored by the liver as fat.
If you are running a calorie deficit, fat is being burned at a greater rate than it is being deposited, but everyone here is here because they've gained fat, and I'd challenge anyone here to tell me they became obese without consuming way more sugar (and/or alcohol, which like fructose is turned immediately to fat) than their body needed. Bearing in mind that it's in about 80% of all food items you'll find in the supermarket.
The other thing with fructose is that it overrides the body's mechanism that stops a person feeling hungry after eating. Alcohol does the same. So not only do you have the calories from sugar, but you eat more than you would otherwise because your appetite is not satisfied by it.
Fruit is better than refined sugar/HFCS because the sugar is bound to the fibre and thus it takes longer for the body to absorb it in that form (which is as nature intended). And being full of fibre, it is also filling. Fruit juices, however, are diabolical, every bit as bad as Coke or Pepsi.
One other thing...there is no "unnatural" sugar. It all comes from some kind of plant, and the human body does not differentiate, except as I said that when accompanied by fibre, as in fruit, the absorption is slower (which is where Glycaemic Index comes in).
I suggest you google Robert Lustig and read or listen to what he has to say on the subject of sugar and its effect on the body in the amounts it is currently being consumed in our society.19 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »
Wrong again ..the only thing that goes straight to fat is excess calories....
Are you really saying that added sugar goes straight to fat but natural sugars don't???
Cane sugar (sucrose) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup is over 50% fructose (typically 55-65%). Honey is 40% fructose. The glucose in sucrose or HFCS is firstly used by the liver to produce insulin, which provides energy, and is stored in the liver and the muscles. There is a limit to how much can be stored, and any excess glucose, and every skerrick of the fructose, is stored by the liver as fat.
If you are running a calorie deficit, fat is being burned at a greater rate than it is being deposited, but everyone here is here because they've gained fat, and I'd challenge anyone here to tell me they became obese without consuming way more sugar (and/or alcohol, which like fructose is turned immediately to fat) than their body needed. Bearing in mind that it's in about 80% of all food items you'll find in the supermarket.
The other thing with fructose is that it overrides the body's mechanism that stops a person feeling hungry after eating. Alcohol does the same. So not only do you have the calories from sugar, but you eat more than you would otherwise because your appetite is not satisfied by it.
Fruit is better than refined sugar/HFCS because the sugar is bound to the fibre and thus it takes longer for the body to absorb it in that form (which is as nature intended). And being full of fibre, it is also filling. Fruit juices, however, are diabolical, every bit as bad as Coke or Pepsi.
One other thing...there is no "unnatural" sugar. It all comes from some kind of plant, and the human body does not differentiate, except as I said that when accompanied by fibre, as in fruit, the absorption is slower (which is where Glycaemic Index comes in).
I suggest you google Robert Lustig and read or listen to what he has to say on the subject of sugar and its effect on the body in the amounts it is currently being consumed in our society.
Don't mention Lustig around here, you'll really set some people off. He's considered a bit of a quack.
All sugar, 'natural' or otherwise, is processed by the body in basically the same way. It's all glucose, at the end of the day. Sure, there's fibre in fruit, but it doesn't make as much of a difference as you seem to think. That doesn't mean it's all bad, it just means that maybe eating a three punnets of grapes over a handful of gummy sweets isn't a smart idea. If you're in a calorie deficit, then the amount of sugar you eat doesn't matter for weight loss. For health, yes, for weight loss, no. A calorie is a calorie. Your body isn't going to store excess sugar as fat if you're in a calorie deficit, it's going to use it.
It is entirely possible (and several people here have done so) to gain weight eating sugar free and 'healthy' - because weight gain is because of calories. It just so happens that foods we enjoy that are not nutrient dense tend to have sugar in them for flavour. But a lot of my weight gain was from savoury foods. Pork pies, crisps (chips to Americans), corned beef, bacon. The only sugary thing I really went for was fruit, ironically.
As for sugar not making one feel full, that's totally down to an individual's preference. Some people feel more full on more carbs. Some people feel more full on protein, some fibre, etc, etc. Sugary foods, depending on the food, do make me feel full sometimes. Hard sweets, for example. If I'm hungry but can't eat for a couple hours, I'll have a few hard sweets to tide me over. Sugary things don't make you feel full, fine, but don't assume everyone is the same. If sugar free works for you, great! I'm glad you've found a way of eating that works for you and doesn't make you miserable. But again, don't assume everyone's the same. Most people won't be able to keep that kind of eating up when they reach goal weight, and it's best they find a good moderate way of eating that doesn't unnecessarily overcomplicate things.9 -
i think everyone should just do what they want.. if they don't want it, they don't want it. this thread can just for people who want to do sugar free. does that sound more productive for everyone?3
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I'm writing about my sugar free process on my blog here at myfitnesspal. Was wondering if anyone is also doing sugar free - no sugar, and no processed food at all. (white bread, pasta, tortilla, white rice), basically I'm only eating what I cook myself.
Thanks!
@147Daneen I left them cold turkey Oct 2014. The first two weeks was hellish after 40 years of abusing carbs but my health is recovering nicely. Wish I had started this WOE long ago and not waiting until I was 63 with health crashings.
It is not something all can do because carb addictions can be really hard to walk away from for many. The funny part for all of these years I did not realize I was an addict.
What is the link to your blog?
There is no such thing as carb addiction.
Or are you admitting that carbs are an essential part of a healthy diet?
I agree there's no such thing as carb addiction. Just lack of self-control or lack of self-awareness of what you are eating and in what quantities.4 -
The amount of complete nonsense I have seen posted on this thread in regards to sugar intake makes it almost feel like I am reading a post on a conspiracy theory forum. Just because you caught an episode of Oprah and became convinced or have managed to buy into the lies and nonsense of someone like Robert Lustig does not make it true.
Modern health hacks that spout these types of things in the popular press are mostly salesmen. They play on fear. They cater to hope, and they themselves hope you will show for their book signings at Barnes and Noble at the mall. Yes, sugar is "toxic" if you shoot up a lab rat with 50Ccc's, but to the average human to call it toxic is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, willful ignorance.12 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »
Wrong again ..the only thing that goes straight to fat is excess calories....
Are you really saying that added sugar goes straight to fat but natural sugars don't???
Cane sugar (sucrose) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup is over 50% fructose (typically 55-65%). Honey is 40% fructose.
HFCS is typically 55% fructose.
Fruit also primarily contains glucose, fructose, and sucrose, in various amounts depending on the fruit.
Your body breaks sucrose down to glucose and fructose.
So far, the same sugars.
(There are differences between a cookie (which would ordinarily contain sucrose) and an apple, but not the type of sugar in any meaningful way.)The glucose in sucrose or HFCS is firstly used by the liver to produce insulin, which provides energy, and is stored in the liver and the muscles. There is a limit to how much can be stored, and any excess glucose, and every skerrick of the fructose, is stored by the liver as fat.
No, and also how would this distinguish it from fruit?If you are running a calorie deficit, fat is being burned at a greater rate than it is being deposited, but everyone here is here because they've gained fat, and I'd challenge anyone here to tell me they became obese without consuming way more sugar (and/or alcohol, which like fructose is turned immediately to fat) than their body needed. Bearing in mind that it's in about 80% of all food items you'll find in the supermarket.
I don't have a huge sweet tooth and am snobby about what I buy from the supermarket and like cooking from whole foods. When I was overeating I wasn't eating much added sugar (I probably ate as much or more when losing).
I also was at my thinnest when overconsuming alcohol regularly, since total calories weren't as high then, but that was a while back.The other thing with fructose is that it overrides the body's mechanism that stops a person feeling hungry after eating. Alcohol does the same. So not only do you have the calories from sugar, but you eat more than you would otherwise because your appetite is not satisfied by it.
This may well be true for some (although I don't know how you'd confirm it was the fructose). It's not the same for everyone. (I think it's wrong with alcohol too -- instead, lots of people don't perceive calories than are consumed in liquid form to be filling in the same way and people often consume alcohol for reasons other than hunger -- pretty much always, I'd suggest.)
More likely, foods that have sucrose or HFCS tend to be foods that also have fat in many cases and, more significantly, are foods that people eat hedonistically anyway and which are perceived as highly palatable. The old "I'm stuffed, but sure I could have dessert" phenomenon." I note that I've done that even when the dessert was a cheese plate, with no sugar involved.Fruit is better than refined sugar/HFCS because the sugar is bound to the fibre and thus it takes longer for the body to absorb it in that form (which is as nature intended). And being full of fibre, it is also filling. Fruit juices, however, are diabolical, every bit as bad as Coke or Pepsi.
Nature does not have intentions.
The word "diabolical" prevents reasoned discussion.
That aside, YES, for many people fiber makes fruit more filling than some other foods with sugar (there are foods with added sugar that have fiber too, obviously -- many people add sugar to oats). This is why asserting that the difference is the type of sugar makes no sense.
IME, adding a bit of sugar in a dry rub to some ribs doesn't negate the effect of the protein or the beans (with fiber) one might eat with them or the like. If one is tempted to overeat, I would be inclined to blame tasty fat plus overall highly palatable food being easy to overeat.
The obsession with sugar tends to preclude a real discussion of what leads to overeating.10 -
day 8 of sugar free! cooked all my meals for the most part, ate egg & turkey bacon for lunch yesterday outside, but it wasn't bad! whee!
Isn't turkey bacon processed? Or are you using some kind of alternative definition.
People who say they are giving up processed foods never really seem to be.9 -
Again, we haven't gotten clarification on whether the thread is about being "sugar free" or just avoiding added sugar. As I think I said upthread, I currently find it easier to eat quite low carb with my only sources of carbs non starchy veg, dairy, nuts, and fruit (whatever's local and in-season), so I'm generally "no added sugar," although far from sugar free. I also don't worry about using something like sriracha that has a tiny amount of sugar per serving.0
-
From the past 8 days - here's the effects that I did notice after eating sugar free for 8 days:
1) i have better skin - even though it's only been 1 day more than a week, my skin has improved noticably. I used to always get pimples, but now they have subsided, even the marks. I think I also have less wrinkles on the forehead, so it's not very noticeable yet because I didn't have that many to start with.
2) definitely lost a lot of sizes around the waist - where my old pants were tight, even though it's only 8 days ( i know), i can now fit into them without discomfort.
3) feel less like napping after lunch / in the afternoon - that's something I also really like - because in the past, I'd always have that 1 hour or 2 in the afternoon where I really feel lethargic
Actually, it's been all great for me thus far and it was not that hard for me after the first 3-4 days (very hard on day 2-4 for me....), I feel really great, and should be all thanks to this since nothing else has changed...4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »day 8 of sugar free! cooked all my meals for the most part, ate egg & turkey bacon for lunch yesterday outside, but it wasn't bad! whee!
Isn't turkey bacon processed? Or are you using some kind of alternative definition.
People who say they are giving up processed foods never really seem to be.
Not to mention some turkey bacons have (gasp!) added sugar.6 -
No added sugar plan:
Fruit on my yoghurt - out... I'm adding lots of sugar to the yoghurt.
Bowl of sugar cubes on their own - In!.. not adding any "added sugar" to my product which contains 'natural sugars'.6 -
From the past 8 days - here's the effects that I did notice after eating sugar free for 8 days:
1) i have better skin - even though it's only been 1 day more than a week, my skin has improved noticably. I used to always get pimples, but now they have subsided, even the marks. I think I also have less wrinkles on the forehead, so it's not very noticeable yet because I didn't have that many to start with.
2) definitely lost a lot of sizes around the waist - where my old pants were tight, even though it's only 8 days ( i know), i can now fit into them without discomfort.
3) feel less like napping after lunch / in the afternoon - that's something I also really like - because in the past, I'd always have that 1 hour or 2 in the afternoon where I really feel lethargic
Actually, it's been all great for me thus far and it was not that hard for me after the first 3-4 days (very hard on day 2-4 for me....), I feel really great, and should be all thanks to this since nothing else has changed...
That's fantastic, it sounds like this WOE really works for you. It was about three weeks into this that I knew I would never eat any other way, the improvements to my quality of life were so dramatic and undeniable. For me, it was almost entirely mental improvements, improvements to mood, focus and mental endurance. But I also have more energy and it's consistent. I can go on a run after not eating for 18 hours and not feel like I'm struggling.3 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »From the past 8 days - here's the effects that I did notice after eating sugar free for 8 days:
1) i have better skin - even though it's only been 1 day more than a week, my skin has improved noticably. I used to always get pimples, but now they have subsided, even the marks. I think I also have less wrinkles on the forehead, so it's not very noticeable yet because I didn't have that many to start with.
2) definitely lost a lot of sizes around the waist - where my old pants were tight, even though it's only 8 days ( i know), i can now fit into them without discomfort.
3) feel less like napping after lunch / in the afternoon - that's something I also really like - because in the past, I'd always have that 1 hour or 2 in the afternoon where I really feel lethargic
Actually, it's been all great for me thus far and it was not that hard for me after the first 3-4 days (very hard on day 2-4 for me....), I feel really great, and should be all thanks to this since nothing else has changed...
That's fantastic, it sounds like this WOE really works for you. It was about three weeks into this that I knew I would never eat any other way, the improvements to my quality of life were so dramatic and undeniable. For me, it was almost entirely mental improvements, improvements to mood, focus and mental endurance. But I also have more energy and it's consistent. I can go on a run after not eating for 18 hours and not feel like I'm struggling.
that's great! I too have noticed that, and I actually had no idea what eating sugar (white rice, fast carb, however they are called) was doing to me in this regard. I work in a very high-paced industry (fast reaction to number, attention to details a must, lots of negotiation on short notice), and I was always exhausted in the past - i knew that, at certain points, i just had to have that white rice / sugar food in me to make my brain churn... However, ever since i started eating sugar free, i don't fee exhausted any more, and definitely don't feel compelled to ea those things during mentally difficult tasks and days. I would really credit that to this new habit, and I really appreciate that it's helping me work more effectively!
I think one way to make it easier to adopt (once the first few days passed, it is not as difficult), is to find a way that's easy to cook for you and start this during a long weekend /holiday. My experience was that the first 4 days were really difficult on withdrawal symptoms, and even when I was not hungry i just wanted to cry because i was so used to feeling higher on sugar. Luckily those days were during my July 4th vacation for me, so I was able to just stay at home and sleep...Even a long weekend would suffice. Also, there are some very easy ways to cook root vegetables - yam, sweet potato, turnip, etc - you can just microwave them for 8 minutes while covered, and you can buy a load of them every week in advance, so you don't have to worry so much about planning every day. I think that has been very helpful for me as someone who has a very demanding schedule and relatively long-ish hours.
0 -
I'm doing the keto diet which is pretty restrictive on all carbs so I don't do root veg. Luckily, I have a lot of autistic qualities, one being that I can eat the same thing every day and never get bored.1
-
Here's a link to the Low Carber Daily mfp group that I mentioned up thread. I forgot it earlier. Sorry about that.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
They're a very supportive bunch who will understand where you are coming from.
Continued best wishes.2 -
Entirely to be expected. You see there are some extremely powerful vested interests in play here, who want things to continue exactly as they are, ie huge consumption of sugar and foods containing it. They don't care how fat or sick the populace gets, it is their profits they care about. Such powerful vested interests would have no qualms whatsoever about posting en masse on weight loss forums such as this, discrediting anyone they consider a threat to their interests. They also tend to favour those financially who treat their wares kindly.MarziPanda95 wrote: »Don't mention Lustig around here, you'll really set some people off. He's considered a bit of a quack.
Like John Yudkin before him, Lustig makes some compelling arguments, so he has to be destroyed, like Yudkin was. I've yet to see them in any manner debunked. I've seen a lot of fiddling with dodgy figures and ridiculous assertions regarding a mythical drop in sugar consumption here in Australia and an "Australian Conundrum" based on fabricated sugar consumption figures, which on its own convinces me that much is being hidden. It's very easy to call someone a "quack" but much more difficult to debunk what appears to be quite sound science.
Anyway, those who think sugar is hunky dory are free to eat 5 Tim Tams (500 calories) )not sure other countries have these very sweet and very popular chocolate biscuits) for dinner and enjoy the fun as their body craves some real food.
11 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »
Entirely to be expected. You see there are some extremely powerful vested interests in play here, who want things to continue exactly as they are, ie huge consumption of sugar and foods containing it. They don't care how fat or sick the populace gets, it is their profits they care about. Such powerful vested interests would have no qualms whatsoever about posting en masse on weight loss forums such as this, discrediting anyone they consider a threat to their interests. They also tend to favour those financially who treat their wares kindly.MarziPanda95 wrote: »Don't mention Lustig around here, you'll really set some people off. He's considered a bit of a quack.
Like John Yudkin before him, Lustig makes some compelling arguments, so he has to be destroyed, like Yudkin was. I've yet to see them in any manner debunked. I've seen a lot of fiddling with dodgy figures and ridiculous assertions regarding a mythical drop in sugar consumption here in Australia and an "Australian Conundrum" based on fabricated sugar consumption figures, which on its own convinces me that much is being hidden. It's very easy to call someone a "quack" but much more difficult to debunk what appears to be quite sound science.
Anyway, those who think sugar is hunky dory are free to eat 5 Tim Tams (500 calories) )not sure other countries have these very sweet and very popular chocolate biscuits) for dinner and enjoy the fun as their body craves some real food.
Right, we are all paid shills for the sugar industry...
Listing has been called out by numerous of his peers as a pseudo-scientist and fear-monger
No one is saying eat large quantities of sugar and ignore nutrition; what we are saying is that sugar can be part of an overall healthy diet that meets macro, micro, and calorie targets. What matters is context and dosage. There are no bad foods , just bad diets.
But if you want to do some super restrictive diet and be miserable because you are worried about how much fruit you are eating, then by all means knock yourself out.12 -
Ah the conspiracy theory response! What a neat way to dismiss anyone who challenges your beliefs.paulwatts747 wrote: »
Entirely to be expected. You see there are some extremely powerful vested interests in play here, who want things to continue exactly as they are, ie huge consumption of sugar and foods containing it. They don't care how fat or sick the populace gets, it is their profits they care about. Such powerful vested interests would have no qualms whatsoever about posting en masse on weight loss forums such as this, discrediting anyone they consider a threat to their interests. They also tend to favour those financially who treat their wares kindly.MarziPanda95 wrote: »Don't mention Lustig around here, you'll really set some people off. He's considered a bit of a quack.
Like John Yudkin before him, Lustig makes some compelling arguments, so he has to be destroyed, like Yudkin was. I've yet to see them in any manner debunked. I've seen a lot of fiddling with dodgy figures and ridiculous assertions regarding a mythical drop in sugar consumption here in Australia and an "Australian Conundrum" based on fabricated sugar consumption figures, which on its own convinces me that much is being hidden. It's very easy to call someone a "quack" but much more difficult to debunk what appears to be quite sound science.
Anyway, those who think sugar is hunky dory are free to eat 5 Tim Tams (500 calories) )not sure other countries have these very sweet and very popular chocolate biscuits) for dinner and enjoy the fun as their body craves some real food.
If you actually have an open mind then Alan Aragon would be worth read - http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Some bullet points for you....
Sugar consumption is falling - people are still getting fatter, not just in your country.
Lustig was "destroyed" because his version of events and methods didn't stand up to any scrutiny, see above link.
Carbs rarely convert to fat (in humans) as they are a preferred fuel source, the less conversion your body does the more efficient it is. Which is great, until we overeat calories.
(Who I work for is a matter of public record by the way in case you wonder. I work for myself!)
12 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »
Entirely to be expected. You see there are some extremely powerful vested interests in play here, who want things to continue exactly as they are, ie huge consumption of sugar and foods containing it. They don't care how fat or sick the populace gets, it is their profits they care about. Such powerful vested interests would have no qualms whatsoever about posting en masse on weight loss forums such as this, discrediting anyone they consider a threat to their interests. They also tend to favour those financially who treat their wares kindly.MarziPanda95 wrote: »Don't mention Lustig around here, you'll really set some people off. He's considered a bit of a quack.
Like John Yudkin before him, Lustig makes some compelling arguments, so he has to be destroyed, like Yudkin was. I've yet to see them in any manner debunked. I've seen a lot of fiddling with dodgy figures and ridiculous assertions regarding a mythical drop in sugar consumption here in Australia and an "Australian Conundrum" based on fabricated sugar consumption figures, which on its own convinces me that much is being hidden. It's very easy to call someone a "quack" but much more difficult to debunk what appears to be quite sound science.
Anyway, those who think sugar is hunky dory are free to eat 5 Tim Tams (500 calories) )not sure other countries have these very sweet and very popular chocolate biscuits) for dinner and enjoy the fun as their body craves some real food.
Right, we are all paid shills for the sugar industry...
Listing has been called out by numerous of his peers as a pseudo-scientist and fear-monger
No one is saying eat large quantities of sugar and ignore nutrition; what we are saying is that sugar can be part of an overall healthy diet that meets macro, micro, and calorie targets. What matters is context and dosage. There are no bad foods , just bad diets.
But if you want to do some super restrictive diet and be miserable because you are worried about how much fruit you are eating, then by all means knock yourself out.
Wait, we are supposed to be getting paid!? My check must have been lost in the mail. Grr, that darn accounting department at Big Sugar! They are so careless!
13 -
I'm doing a Whole 30 (part of a gym challenge). No added sugar of any sort, but fruit is okay. I'm feeling fine! Do what works for you! But be sure to read your labels. Does the turkey bacon you buy have no added sugar??1
-
My first month I ditched all processed food and sugars (including fruit). I have slowly added all foods in and done really well with it. You have to develop a lifestyle you can do forever.2
-
Where do I sign up to be a paid shill? I mean, should I call one of the sugar companies listed in the baking aisle, or is there some "Big Sugar" hotline that hires everyone?5
-
WinoGelato wrote: »paulwatts747 wrote: »
Entirely to be expected. You see there are some extremely powerful vested interests in play here, who want things to continue exactly as they are, ie huge consumption of sugar and foods containing it. They don't care how fat or sick the populace gets, it is their profits they care about. Such powerful vested interests would have no qualms whatsoever about posting en masse on weight loss forums such as this, discrediting anyone they consider a threat to their interests. They also tend to favour those financially who treat their wares kindly.MarziPanda95 wrote: »Don't mention Lustig around here, you'll really set some people off. He's considered a bit of a quack.
Like John Yudkin before him, Lustig makes some compelling arguments, so he has to be destroyed, like Yudkin was. I've yet to see them in any manner debunked. I've seen a lot of fiddling with dodgy figures and ridiculous assertions regarding a mythical drop in sugar consumption here in Australia and an "Australian Conundrum" based on fabricated sugar consumption figures, which on its own convinces me that much is being hidden. It's very easy to call someone a "quack" but much more difficult to debunk what appears to be quite sound science.
Anyway, those who think sugar is hunky dory are free to eat 5 Tim Tams (500 calories) )not sure other countries have these very sweet and very popular chocolate biscuits) for dinner and enjoy the fun as their body craves some real food.
Right, we are all paid shills for the sugar industry...
Listing has been called out by numerous of his peers as a pseudo-scientist and fear-monger
No one is saying eat large quantities of sugar and ignore nutrition; what we are saying is that sugar can be part of an overall healthy diet that meets macro, micro, and calorie targets. What matters is context and dosage. There are no bad foods , just bad diets.
But if you want to do some super restrictive diet and be miserable because you are worried about how much fruit you are eating, then by all means knock yourself out.
Wait, we are supposed to be getting paid!? My check must have been lost in the mail. Grr, that darn accounting department at Big Sugar! They are so careless!
send me your bank information and i will send you the million that you are owed from big sugar...4 -
Perhaps, just perhaps...
Food companies are in the business of selling food.
People like food with sugar in, so they buy food with sugar in because it tastes nice.*
So food companies make food with the substance which makes it taste nice in, so people buy it.
(*We can blame evolution/god for that one.)8 -
Perhaps, just perhaps...
Food companies are in the business of selling food.
People like food with sugar in, so they buy food with sugar in because it tastes nice.*
So food companies make food with the substance which makes it taste nice in, so people buy it.
(*We can blame evolution/god for that one.)
na, the food kabal wants to kill us off by getting us addicted to sugar, which is toxic, which will kill off all their customers...4 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Where do I sign up to be a paid shill? I mean, should I call one of the sugar companies listed in the baking aisle, or is there some "Big Sugar" hotline that hires everyone?
I'm confused about how I was even shilling here, as I'm all for limiting sugar, but I guess our employer has low standards. Email me and I'll hook you up! Best way to make $$$$ a day from your home and all that.*
*Just kidding.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions