sugar my problem
Options
Replies
-
I've a question for all of you who have "cut sugar out" obviously that's not technically correct as you do still eat sugar may in a restricted manner.
When you plan your sugar consumption do you count total grams per day or instead only eat foods with no more than "x" grams of sugar?
I started cutting sugar by only eating foods with less than 3 grams of sugar but during the process I was utterly shocked at how much sugar so many of my favorite foods had. Like balsamic vinegar! And bananas! I became disheartened and gradually stopped following it
So which do you do and what amounts do you limit yourself to?
I don't restrict sugar at all. I just focus on hitting my protein and fat goals which tends to naturally keep carbohydrates (which includes sugar) within a certain range. But in a given day, I don't pay attention to where those carbohydrates come from. One day they might come mostly from whole grains and green vegetables and other days I may have a bunch of berries and some Skittles. As long as I'm meeting my nutritional needs, it's all good.4 -
I've a question for all of you who have "cut sugar out" obviously that's not technically correct as you do still eat sugar may in a restricted manner.
When you plan your sugar consumption do you count total grams per day or instead only eat foods with no more than "x" grams of sugar?
I started cutting sugar by only eating foods with less than 3 grams of sugar but during the process I was utterly shocked at how much sugar so many of my favorite foods had. Like balsamic vinegar! And bananas! I became disheartened and gradually stopped following it
So which do you do and what amounts do you limit yourself to?
So you were trying to cut all sugar... not just added? Because anything that is fruit/veggie based will contain sugar.. but it's natural and comes with a lot of other beneficial nutrients. And if those foods, like banana's/balsamic vinegar are some of your favorites, why would you restrict them, especially if they keep you on track.
Heck, the whole reason I would never low carb is because I love fruit way too much and fat doesn't satiate me.
No I wasn't trying to cut all sugar because that would mean you could only eat protein (and the fat it contained) just reduce the amount of sugar intake. Which is why I was asking what limits others who are cutting sugar out use. An old program I was on did the 3gram foods restriction which I realize is quite restricted... But I read somewhere that I can't find again about limiting total daily intake to... (I don't remember exactly) around 20 grams per day total intake which again doesn't take very long to get up to when a serving of banana is 16 grams alone and balsamic vinegar is over 20 per tbs!
The recommendations from the WHO and similar organizations are 25g of added sugars. No restriction on natural sugars from things like fruits/veggies/dairy.1 -
I've a question for all of you who have "cut sugar out" obviously that's not technically correct as you do still eat sugar may in a restricted manner.
When you plan your sugar consumption do you count total grams per day or instead only eat foods with no more than "x" grams of sugar?
I started cutting sugar by only eating foods with less than 3 grams of sugar but during the process I was utterly shocked at how much sugar so many of my favorite foods had. Like balsamic vinegar! And bananas! I became disheartened and gradually stopped following it
So which do you do and what amounts do you limit yourself to?
So you were trying to cut all sugar... not just added? Because anything that is fruit/veggie based will contain sugar.. but it's natural and comes with a lot of other beneficial nutrients. And if those foods, like banana's/balsamic vinegar are some of your favorites, why would you restrict them, especially if they keep you on track.
Heck, the whole reason I would never low carb is because I love fruit way too much and fat doesn't satiate me.
No I wasn't trying to cut all sugar because that would mean you could only eat protein (and the fat it contained) just reduce the amount of sugar intake. Which is why I was asking what limits others who are cutting sugar out use. An old program I was on did the 3gram foods restriction which I realize is quite restricted... But I read somewhere that I can't find again about limiting total daily intake to... (I don't remember exactly) around 20 grams per day total intake which again doesn't take very long to get up to when a serving of banana is 16 grams alone and balsamic vinegar is over 20 per tbs!
The recommendations from the WHO and similar organizations are 25g of added sugars. No restriction on natural sugars from things like fruits/veggies/dairy.
The 20 is just an arbitrary number because as I said I don't remember what number the website gave and I can no longer remember what website it was... Lost the bookmark with my old phone... It was higher than 20 but lower than 100 just don't remember what... 87 seems to stand out but I don't know. But I remember that it was total sugar grams not just added sugar grams. It had recipes on it and everything
0 -
I've a question for all of you who have "cut sugar out" obviously that's not technically correct as you do still eat sugar may in a restricted manner.
When you plan your sugar consumption do you count total grams per day or instead only eat foods with no more than "x" grams of sugar?
I started cutting sugar by only eating foods with less than 3 grams of sugar but during the process I was utterly shocked at how much sugar so many of my favorite foods had. Like balsamic vinegar! And bananas! I became disheartened and gradually stopped following it
So which do you do and what amounts do you limit yourself to?
When I cut out added sugar the first time, it was an experiment because people suggested it would be this incredibly hard, life-changing experiment and because I tend to struggle with emotional eating.
I didn't count grams of sugar (later I did because I started logging on MFP, but that had nothing to do with the no added sugar experiment). I focused only on added sugar, and I think it's quite easy to tell if a food has added sugar or not. I did not have a "only X grams does not count" out, but if I thought it might have added sugar I did not eat it.
When I later did it again more to deal with falling back into overeating habits (post Christmas) and emotional eating again, I was more interested in just avoiding foods I was not moderating so well, so then I focused only on sweets and did not concern myself with the bit of added sugar in a spice blend or smoked salmon or whatever (but my diet is pretty low on so called "hidden sugar" (which isn't) anyway). I also didn't worry about a bit of chutney on a savory dish or a restaurant meal if savory, however.
Since then I've focused only on carbs, not sugar, but if I am eating pretty low carb (as now) I just can't afford much added sugar if I want to have the other sources of carbs I think are important in my diet.1 -
I've a question for all of you who have "cut sugar out" obviously that's not technically correct as you do still eat sugar may in a restricted manner.
When you plan your sugar consumption do you count total grams per day or instead only eat foods with no more than "x" grams of sugar?
I started cutting sugar by only eating foods with less than 3 grams of sugar but during the process I was utterly shocked at how much sugar so many of my favorite foods had. Like balsamic vinegar! And bananas! I became disheartened and gradually stopped following it
So which do you do and what amounts do you limit yourself to?
So you were trying to cut all sugar... not just added? Because anything that is fruit/veggie based will contain sugar.. but it's natural and comes with a lot of other beneficial nutrients. And if those foods, like banana's/balsamic vinegar are some of your favorites, why would you restrict them, especially if they keep you on track.
Heck, the whole reason I would never low carb is because I love fruit way too much and fat doesn't satiate me.
No I wasn't trying to cut all sugar because that would mean you could only eat protein (and the fat it contained) just reduce the amount of sugar intake. Which is why I was asking what limits others who are cutting sugar out use. An old program I was on did the 3gram foods restriction which I realize is quite restricted... But I read somewhere that I can't find again about limiting total daily intake to... (I don't remember exactly) around 20 grams per day total intake which again doesn't take very long to get up to when a serving of banana is 16 grams alone and balsamic vinegar is over 20 per tbs!
That's added sugar (or what the WHO calls "free sugar") -- recommended limit is no more than 10% of calories per day, ideally under 5%. It's about calories and having a nutrient dense diet, not sugar being bad inherently. The 25 g comes from 5% of a 2000 calorie diet (100 calories or 25 g from sugar).
So that wouldn't be a reason to worry about bananas (I also can't imagine using so much vinegar that you would get enough sugar to concern yourself with, I use it pretty freely when LCHFing).
I've never seen anything credible saying one needs to worry about non added sugar, and my only check on those is getting enough protein and fat, a balanced overall diet, and, as now, whatever I might be limiting carbs to. That something is on a website doesn't mean it's backed up by good reason or science.2 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »@hale03071
Ohhhhh you said the f word (fructose)...you're going to get it ....j/k
I posted a link to how the body metabolized fructose differently and got it good. Then I backed it up with a few links,all of them saying fruits and vegetables are good,and they went off.
The problem is you cannot claim fructose is all bad and then that fruit is fine in that fruit has fructose. There's no real difference between the types of sugar in table sugar (sucrose breaks down to glucose and fructose) and fruit (mix of fructose, glucose, and sucrose, in various amounts depending on the fruit).
I eat very little added sugar currently, and have cut it out at times (I found it not that hard, perhaps because when I initially did it I didn't also cut carbs overall quite low, or perhaps because I already mostly cooked for myself with whole foods). So anyway, point is I am not saying there's no value to cutting way down on added sugar if you eat a lot or even cutting it out (or cutting out sweets) entirely. What I AM saying is that it's not accurate to say a cookie is different from an apple because of fructose (or anything to do with sugar). The apple, instead, has a little more fiber, different/more nutrients, and the cookie has more calories because of a lot of fat and might be hard not to overeat for many. (Some say they have just as much trouble not overeating the apple, but I bet that's less common).I'm also trying to eliminate foods with added sugars because they're just empty calories.
This is another thing that's just not true (although as I said I've done it, so I don't think it's a bad thing to do). If I add a little sugar to a rhubarb sauce or some brown sugar and apples to steel cut oats, do they cease having nutrients? And there are foods without any sugar at all that add as many calories with no more nutrients (some of which I happily eat, like olive oil, cheese).
But all this aside, if cutting out added sugar works for you, I think that's great. I just will disagree if you make claims that aren't accurate.
No where did I ever say fructose is bad...I even typed that in caps
You do not know me...do not tell me what I am or am not TRYING to do2 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »@hale03071
Ohhhhh you said the f word (fructose)...you're going to get it ....j/k
I posted a link to how the body metabolized fructose differently and got it good. Then I backed it up with a few links,all of them saying fruits and vegetables are good,and they went off.
The problem is you cannot claim fructose is all bad and then that fruit is fine in that fruit has fructose. There's no real difference between the types of sugar in table sugar (sucrose breaks down to glucose and fructose) and fruit (mix of fructose, glucose, and sucrose, in various amounts depending on the fruit).
I eat very little added sugar currently, and have cut it out at times (I found it not that hard, perhaps because when I initially did it I didn't also cut carbs overall quite low, or perhaps because I already mostly cooked for myself with whole foods). So anyway, point is I am not saying there's no value to cutting way down on added sugar if you eat a lot or even cutting it out (or cutting out sweets) entirely. What I AM saying is that it's not accurate to say a cookie is different from an apple because of fructose (or anything to do with sugar). The apple, instead, has a little more fiber, different/more nutrients, and the cookie has more calories because of a lot of fat and might be hard not to overeat for many. (Some say they have just as much trouble not overeating the apple, but I bet that's less common).I'm also trying to eliminate foods with added sugars because they're just empty calories.
This is another thing that's just not true (although as I said I've done it, so I don't think it's a bad thing to do). If I add a little sugar to a rhubarb sauce or some brown sugar and apples to steel cut oats, do they cease having nutrients? And there are foods without any sugar at all that add as many calories with no more nutrients (some of which I happily eat, like olive oil, cheese).
But all this aside, if cutting out added sugar works for you, I think that's great. I just will disagree if you make claims that aren't accurate.
No where did I ever say fructose is bad...I even typed that in caps
You do not know me...do not tell me what I am or am not TRYING to do
Where did she tell you what you were trying to do? Just reread her post and I couldn't find it.2 -
This all sounds very nice in theory - thing is, the same amount of sugar in a cookie versus an apple is metabolized very differently - ask any diabetic. The blood glucose meter doesn't lie!lemurcat12 wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »@hale03071
Ohhhhh you said the f word (fructose)...you're going to get it ....j/k
I posted a link to how the body metabolized fructose differently and got it good. Then I backed it up with a few links,all of them saying fruits and vegetables are good,and they went off.
The problem is you cannot claim fructose is all bad and then that fruit is fine in that fruit has fructose. There's no real difference between the types of sugar in table sugar (sucrose breaks down to glucose and fructose) and fruit (mix of fructose, glucose, and sucrose, in various amounts depending on the fruit).
I eat very little added sugar currently, and have cut it out at times (I found it not that hard, perhaps because when I initially did it I didn't also cut carbs overall quite low, or perhaps because I already mostly cooked for myself with whole foods). So anyway, point is I am not saying there's no value to cutting way down on added sugar if you eat a lot or even cutting it out (or cutting out sweets) entirely. What I AM saying is that it's not accurate to say a cookie is different from an apple because of fructose (or anything to do with sugar). The apple, instead, has a little more fiber, different/more nutrients, and the cookie has more calories because of a lot of fat and might be hard not to overeat for many. (Some say they have just as much trouble not overeating the apple, but I bet that's less common).I'm also trying to eliminate foods with added sugars because they're just empty calories.
This is another thing that's just not true (although as I said I've done it, so I don't think it's a bad thing to do). If I add a little sugar to a rhubarb sauce or some brown sugar and apples to steel cut oats, do they cease having nutrients? And there are foods without any sugar at all that add as many calories with no more nutrients (some of which I happily eat, like olive oil, cheese).
But all this aside, if cutting out added sugar works for you, I think that's great. I just will disagree if you make claims that aren't accurate.lemurcat12 wrote: »I've a question for all of you who have "cut sugar out" obviously that's not technically correct as you do still eat sugar may in a restricted manner.
When you plan your sugar consumption do you count total grams per day or instead only eat foods with no more than "x" grams of sugar?
I started cutting sugar by only eating foods with less than 3 grams of sugar but during the process I was utterly shocked at how much sugar so many of my favorite foods had. Like balsamic vinegar! And bananas! I became disheartened and gradually stopped following it
So which do you do and what amounts do you limit yourself to?
So you were trying to cut all sugar... not just added? Because anything that is fruit/veggie based will contain sugar.. but it's natural and comes with a lot of other beneficial nutrients. And if those foods, like banana's/balsamic vinegar are some of your favorites, why would you restrict them, especially if they keep you on track.
Heck, the whole reason I would never low carb is because I love fruit way too much and fat doesn't satiate me.
No I wasn't trying to cut all sugar because that would mean you could only eat protein (and the fat it contained) just reduce the amount of sugar intake. Which is why I was asking what limits others who are cutting sugar out use. An old program I was on did the 3gram foods restriction which I realize is quite restricted... But I read somewhere that I can't find again about limiting total daily intake to... (I don't remember exactly) around 20 grams per day total intake which again doesn't take very long to get up to when a serving of banana is 16 grams alone and balsamic vinegar is over 20 per tbs!
That's added sugar (or what the WHO calls "free sugar") -- recommended limit is no more than 10% of calories per day, ideally under 5%. It's about calories and having a nutrient dense diet, not sugar being bad inherently. The 25 g comes from 5% of a 2000 calorie diet (100 calories or 25 g from sugar).
So that wouldn't be a reason to worry about bananas (I also can't imagine using so much vinegar that you would get enough sugar to concern yourself with, I use it pretty freely when LCHFing).
I've never seen anything credible saying one needs to worry about non added sugar, and my only check on those is getting enough protein and fat, a balanced overall diet, and, as now, whatever I might be limiting carbs to. That something is on a website doesn't mean it's backed up by good reason or science.
For the record, balsamic vinegar does make a notable difference in my glucose levels. It's very sugary, especially if it's the good, aged stuff, and it's easy to get a lot of sugar, particularly if you make a balsamic reduction for a sauce. It's not anything a healthy person would need to concern themselves with, but it is definitely important to me as a diabetic needing to control my glucose levels.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »@hale03071
Ohhhhh you said the f word (fructose)...you're going to get it ....j/k
I posted a link to how the body metabolized fructose differently and got it good. Then I backed it up with a few links,all of them saying fruits and vegetables are good,and they went off.
The problem is you cannot claim fructose is all bad and then that fruit is fine in that fruit has fructose. There's no real difference between the types of sugar in table sugar (sucrose breaks down to glucose and fructose) and fruit (mix of fructose, glucose, and sucrose, in various amounts depending on the fruit).
I eat very little added sugar currently, and have cut it out at times (I found it not that hard, perhaps because when I initially did it I didn't also cut carbs overall quite low, or perhaps because I already mostly cooked for myself with whole foods). So anyway, point is I am not saying there's no value to cutting way down on added sugar if you eat a lot or even cutting it out (or cutting out sweets) entirely. What I AM saying is that it's not accurate to say a cookie is different from an apple because of fructose (or anything to do with sugar). The apple, instead, has a little more fiber, different/more nutrients, and the cookie has more calories because of a lot of fat and might be hard not to overeat for many. (Some say they have just as much trouble not overeating the apple, but I bet that's less common).I'm also trying to eliminate foods with added sugars because they're just empty calories.
This is another thing that's just not true (although as I said I've done it, so I don't think it's a bad thing to do). If I add a little sugar to a rhubarb sauce or some brown sugar and apples to steel cut oats, do they cease having nutrients? And there are foods without any sugar at all that add as many calories with no more nutrients (some of which I happily eat, like olive oil, cheese).
But all this aside, if cutting out added sugar works for you, I think that's great. I just will disagree if you make claims that aren't accurate.
No where did I ever say fructose is bad...I even typed that in caps
You do not know me...do not tell me what I am or am not TRYING to do
Where did she tell you what you were trying to do? Just reread her post and I couldn't find it.
I can't understand how you missed it.
She quoted me when I said
"I'm trying to eliminate foods with added sugar because they are just empty calories"
Then she went on to say "this is another thing that's just not true"...ect
First part of the sentence is I'm trying to eliminate foods with added sugar...which is what I'm trying to do
The second part of the sentence says "because they are just empty calories"
When you add table sugar on anything,which is the added sugar, they most definitely are empty calories because they are just energy calories void of any nutritional value.
If you interpret that differently you're entitled to do so but imo her entire post is hogwash and based on things I never said
2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything4 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything
Yes, and thankfully there are so many detox centers out there to help people going through their sugar withdrawals.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can think these two are even remotely equivalent.9 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything
Yes, and thankfully there are so many detox centers out there to help people going through their sugar withdrawals.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can think these two are even remotely equivalent.
Are you saying I compared them?
I don't recall doing that either
Being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of which is more addictive which is what I said
I personally have never done cocaine so I wouldn't know
Eta: a quick google I came up with this saying sugar can be more addictive then cocaine
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
4 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything
Yes, and thankfully there are so many detox centers out there to help people going through their sugar withdrawals.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can think these two are even remotely equivalent.
Are you saying I compared them?
I don't recall doing that either
Being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of which is more addictive which is what I said
I personally have never done cocaine so I wouldn't know
Where did I say that?
One doesn't need to personally take cocaine to have had experiences with it.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything
Yes, and thankfully there are so many detox centers out there to help people going through their sugar withdrawals.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can think these two are even remotely equivalent.
Are you saying I compared them?
I don't recall doing that either
Being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of which is more addictive which is what I said
I personally have never done cocaine so I wouldn't know
Where did I say that?
One doesn't need to personally take cocaine to have had experiences with it.
I never said you did say that....I asked hence the question mark
And to really know how addictive is you would have to use it and try to quit2 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything
Yes, and thankfully there are so many detox centers out there to help people going through their sugar withdrawals.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can think these two are even remotely equivalent.
Are you saying I compared them?
I don't recall doing that either
Being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of which is more addictive which is what I said
I personally have never done cocaine so I wouldn't know
Eta: a quick google I came up with this saying sugar can be more addictive then cocaine
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
Did you look at the actual studies that supposedly support this? I've read a couple. They were dodgy in their methodology and the conclusion that sugar is as addictive as cocaine is such a stretch that even Gumby would break. The summary you posted doesn't even link to these articles.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
And btw...people quit cocaine cold turkey also...so being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of anything
Yes, and thankfully there are so many detox centers out there to help people going through their sugar withdrawals.
Seriously, I don't understand how people can think these two are even remotely equivalent.
Are you saying I compared them?
I don't recall doing that either
Being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of which is more addictive which is what I said
I personally have never done cocaine so I wouldn't know
Eta: a quick google I came up with this saying sugar can be more addictive then cocaine
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
Did you look at the actual studies that supposedly support this? I've read a couple. They were dodgy in their methodology and the conclusion that sugar is as addictive as cocaine is such a stretch that even Gumby would break. The summary you posted doesn't even link to these articles.
No I haven't looked at the studies because I really don't care which is more addictive. That was the first article that came up when I googled
All I said was being able to quit one or the other isn't proof of which is more addictive and I stand by that.... because it isn't proof of anything. Then out of the blue you quoted my statement with a snide remark about detox centers and here we are
3 -
I know nothing about cocaine. I have never experienced it myself or with friends or family so will not comment on which is more adictive. However, I think it is harder to avoid sugar as it is added to everything. Things that are advertised as healthy are loaded with sugar. It's in so much advertising so its hard to keep it away from your kids. The food industry makes it very difficult for people that are trying to remove it from their diet because they hide it in just about every processed food.0
-
Something is not hidden if it is on the label.7
-
Food labels are not the same in every country. Where I live I can see the sugar content of a product but it doesn't tell me if it is natural sugar like lactose in dairy or added sugar (fructose). Which makes it very difficult for me to make an informed decision.
We have very common popular "healthy" brands of yoghurt here. But when you really look into it you find that the yoghurt has just as much added sugar as ice cream. Or tomato sauce (ketchup) that has as much sugar as chocolate topping. And the low fat options have heaps more added sugar than full fat options most of the time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions