For the people who eliminated sugar from your diet, how did you do it?
Replies
-
creatureofchaos wrote: »
Funny thing - medical studies don’t agree with you.Carlos_421 wrote: »creatureofchaos wrote: »“Sugar is sugar” is total bull. Ask a diabetic or a doctor who researches insulin response. It’s well documented and has been uncontroversial for decades.
Whether that difference matters for weight loss is a different question.
Insulin response to different foods is not about types of sugar. It is a matter of fiber content and other differences between foods.
The reason a cookie spikes glucose/insulin faster than a piece of fruit is due to the fiber in the fruit slowing absorption. The sugar itself is the same chemical substance and will still be processed the same way, just more slowly because, again, fiber slows absorption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881888/
You clearly didn't understand what that study was about.
In that study, they compared the insulin and blood glucose response of taking straight glucose vs straight fructose vs a combo of glucose and fructose vs a portion of white bread.
Their findings showed that straight glucose had a greater impact than white bread which is perfectly in line with what I said above, considering that the fiber (and more complex carbs) in bread would result in a slower absorption rate than straight glucose.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »creatureofchaos wrote: »“Sugar is sugar” is total bull. Ask a diabetic or a doctor who researches insulin response. It’s well documented and has been uncontroversial for decades.
Whether that difference matters for weight loss is a different question.
Insulin response to different foods is not about types of sugar.
It can be, although I would agree that in a real world environment (when everyone is getting a mix of sugars whatever they are consuming, fruit or sucrose + other ingredients or HFCS+other ingredients), the other things you mention are a bigger factor.
Glucose spikes blood sugar. Fructose, because it is processed through the liver, does not.
Table sugar and fruit are both a mix of both.
Ironically, since some (like the person you were responding to) get so focused on insulin, oh my, the one that is worse for you (in great excess, which is how some do consume it) is almost certainly fructose. But that is not the case in moderate, limited amounts, which is one reason fruit is totally fine for you (and so is an occasional chocolate chip cookie or some ice cream -- just don't have a ridiculous amount on the regular, day after day after day for years, which by definition someone eating a good, sensible diet will not).
Agreed.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Don’t expect a lot of support from the forums in regards to cutting out added processed sugars from your diet. 1) There are a lot of “experts” that can’t seem to grasp that added sugars ARE a problem for many.
2) It’s hard but not impossible to cut out added sugars. The trick is to find all the hidden sugars in your food such as ketchup and salad dressings. It takes a good 30 days for cravings to go away, and expect some “flu-like” days as your 3) body starts to detox. Find healthy substitutes such as 4) fruit and medjool dates. You may also find that other foods might trigger sugar cravings such as white flour. You just need to figure out what is best for you.
There are a lot of websites and books on the subject for more in depth information.
1) Added sugars can be a main source for excess calories for some people. I've never seen that be contested anywhere on this site. The idea that added sugar is somehow a different substance than naturally occurring sugar, that it inherently causes weight gain or that it has to be avoided/cut out in order for weight loss to occur, however, will rightfully be contested because it is false.
2) OP isn't even asking about added sugars. They expressly state that they're seeking to eliminate all sugar in its entirety and that their difficulty with the endeavor lies with the naturally occurring sugar in vegetables. The OP is trying to avoid sugar from vegetables. I think that merits an explanation that complete avoidance of sugar is not warranted nor recommended.
Sue me for caring enough about OP's health to tell them they shouldn't cut vegetables out of their diet.
3) Your body does not "detox" from added sugars. Sugar is not a toxic substance just hanging out a reeking havoc in your body. Sugar (sucrose, glucose and fructose) is digested and utilized for fuel quite quickly whether consumed with an apple (sucrose, glucose and fructose) or candy (sucrose, glucose and fructose). The sugar you ate today will be gone tomorrow, whether it has been burned already or converted to glycogen in your muscles (which is what allows your muscles to work btw).
Furthermore, you can eliminate sugar from your diet but not from your body. Even if all you eat is meat, your body would produce glucose (sugar) to keep you alive.
Hard to detox from something that your body is producing on its own.
4) Fruit contains sucrose, glucose and fructose (all sugar). Most added sugar is either sucrose (which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose) or High Fructose Corn Syrup (which is 45% glucose and 55% fructose).
It's the same chemical substance whether it's added or intrinsic.
See the OP's second post. He's not planning to cut all sugars himself, he's wondering about others who have done so.tinkerbellang83 wrote: »If you enjoy fruit, veg and dairy, why are you trying to cut them out?
Sugar is not the devil
I don't plan to, believe me. I am just amazed at the people who cut out all sugar and gave those up.
Like other posters have said, when people say they've given up sugar, it's more likely than not they actually are only referring to added sugar.
OP said he has tried and is finding it hard to eliminate ALL sugar. And his expression of amazement at those who have succeeded tells me that the reason he doesn't plan to do so is because it seems too hard, not because he thinks it's a bad idea.
I would go along with the "more likely than not they actually are only referring to added sugar" part if it weren't for the near daily barrage of "what about the sugar in fruit?" questions we see here.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »Don’t expect a lot of support from the forums in regards to cutting out added processed sugars from your diet. There are a lot of “experts” that can’t seem to grasp that added sugars ARE a problem for many.
It’s hard but not impossible to cut out added sugars. The trick is to find all the hidden sugars in your food such as ketchup and salad dressings. It takes a good 30 days for cravings to go away, and expect some “flu-like” days as your body starts to detox. Find healthy substitutes such as fruit and medjool dates. You may also find that other foods might trigger sugar cravings such as white flour. You just need to figure out what is best for you.
There are a lot of websites and books on the subject for more in depth information.
Your body doesn't treat added sugar or natural sugar any differently.
Is this a fact? Or what the sugar commercials tell us? I would truly like to see well cited studies on this, and have looked. But haven't seen much of anything.
Regardless, I think most folks would be well served by cutting back on sugar. And added sugars seem like the obvious place to cut back.
I don't think most would do better cutting down on intrinsic sugars. In fact, given the sad paucity of fruit and veg that the average American consumes, I think most would do better consuming MORE intrinsic sugar (as defined by the WHO).
I do think the average American would do better cutting back on added sugar, but the amount people consume varies widely, so not everyone needs to, obviously.
As for sugar, I don't see how your body wouldn't treat it the same in that sucrose (added sugar, normally) is easily broken down into glucose and fructose, and fruit has glucose, fructose, and sucrose -- they are the same things.
The difference is that fruit comes with fiber that slows the processing (which means the glucose spikes blood sugar less and is less likely to lead to an insulin spike that in some will leave them with lower than ideal blood sugar, which can be interpreted as hunger, as well as a crash in energy -- this can happen with all fast carbs, as I am sure you know, like refined grains too). The fiber also slows the processing of the fructose by the liver which is probably better too, although isn't going to be an issue if the overall consumption of sugar is moderate anyway, and not excessive.
I wouldn't say this is a difference between added and intrinsic sugar, but a difference depending on how the sugar is consumed. A banana is lower in fiber than oats with a little sugar and some raspberries. Watermelon could be "processed" faster than a bit of sugar in a BBQ rub consumed with meat and a lot of greens or even a salad with a salad dressing made with honey and mustard. A rhubarb sauce with added sugar will have less sugar and more fiber, normally, than an apple sauce made with just apples.
Again, I am sure you know all these, but I think this broader and more holistic look at diet and how sugar fits in can be important.
I find I do better lately eating very little added sugar, but part of that is that my preferred indulgences are savory ones. I don't think that makes them healthier or that someone with more sugar in the diet can't be just as healthy, if it's within a reasonable limit and calorie limit and in the context of a healthy diet.
I don't disagree with any of this. I hope my post didn't suggest otherwise?0 -
Thanks for this as well. And bingo. Fiber comes into the discussion. Fiber can make a big difference in terms of satiety and blood sugar levels.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Thanks. Good post. Fructose, and high fructose corn syrup as well?moosmum1972 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »Don’t expect a lot of support from the forums in regards to cutting out added processed sugars from your diet. There are a lot of “experts” that can’t seem to grasp that added sugars ARE a problem for many.
It’s hard but not impossible to cut out added sugars. The trick is to find all the hidden sugars in your food such as ketchup and salad dressings. It takes a good 30 days for cravings to go away, and expect some “flu-like” days as your body starts to detox. Find healthy substitutes such as fruit and medjool dates. You may also find that other foods might trigger sugar cravings such as white flour. You just need to figure out what is best for you.
There are a lot of websites and books on the subject for more in depth information.
Your body doesn't treat added sugar or natural sugar any differently.
Is this a fact? Or what the sugar commercials tell us? I would truly like to see well cited studies on this, and have looked. But haven't seen much of anything.
Regardless, I think most folks would be well served by cutting back on sugar. And added sugars seem like the obvious place to cut back.
Sugar is sugar......doesn't matter where it comes from. It's all broken down the same way in your body.
There are differences, albeit small, how sugars/carbs are broken down. Fructose is largely digested in the liver, while other sugars are broken down in the intestines and stomach.
In the end, your body breaks down food all into energy, regardless of source. And I am sure we would all agree that fruits and veggies are better than soda and candy, just like fish has more benefits than fried chicken; this isn't to say, we can't include all of those things, but the predominance of our diets should be made up of whole foods to maximize nutrient uptake (something I believe we all agree with).
Fructose is fructose, regardless of source. So the sugar would break down the same in fruit as it would in soda. The difference is the other nutrients and fiber which slows down the absorption of nutrients and provides additional benefits.
1 -
I just limit refined sugar products like cookies. Get my carbs from fruit and veggies for the most part.4
-
creatureofchaos wrote: »“Sugar is sugar” is total bull. Ask a diabetic or a doctor who researches insulin response. It’s well documented and has been uncontroversial for decades.
Whether that difference matters for weight loss is a different question.
Different types of sugar metabolize at different rates and have a different impacts on BG and insulin responses; it's the reason why endurance athletes will consume a mixture of glucose and fructose during events (glucose is fast absorbing and fructose takes longer to break down). Insulin and BG is also affected by other components, like fiber, protein and fats. These components are beneficial to diabetics as they all slow the absorption of nutrients, which also reduces the impacts to BG levels, which reduces the impacts of insulin. Realistically, instead of having a spike for say 30 minutes, you would have a prolonged increase for 60 minutes.
With that said though, glucose in a candy bar is the same as glucose in fruit. The difference, as alluded to up thread, is the associated with other nutrients and how it can blunt the affects of BG.1 -
This is all valuable information! I appreciate the feedback and rest assured I will not be giving up my fruits, vegetables, and milk. I never thought about the difference between the natural and added sugar and now that I think about it, that's probably what they mean they say they cut out sugar. That being the case, I think I am doing all right. Thanks again!
For the most part, I reduce my added sugar but I do that so it doesn't crowd other and more important nutrients. But I also limit my fat intake since it doesn't satiate me (not matter how much I eat).
What I generally suggest is assessing the foods that have the biggest impact on your hunger and eat those. Because always trying to "push through" hunger is not going to give you a sustainable diet.1 -
Don’t expect a lot of support from the forums in regards to cutting out added processed sugars from your diet. There are a lot of “experts” that can’t seem to grasp that added sugars ARE a problem for many.
It’s hard but not impossible to cut out added sugars. The trick is to find all the hidden sugars in your food such as ketchup and salad dressings. It takes a good 30 days for cravings to go away, and expect some “flu-like” days as your body starts to detox. Find healthy substitutes such as fruit and medjool dates. You may also find that other foods might trigger sugar cravings such as white flour. You just need to figure out what is best for you.
There are a lot of websites and books on the subject for more in depth information.
First of all the OP is talking about ALL sugar. Cutting out fruits, veggies, grains, and dairy.
Secondly ............these websites & books all have an agenda. People are generally trying to sell you something. If you had linked peer reviewed scientific studies, that would be different. But "I read it on the internet" doesn't further your cause.3 -
I don't really think ANYONE cuts out "ALL SUGAR". I can see processed ones, such as baked goods, bread, pasta, processed foods in general, but to cut out ALL food that contains sugar is a bit much.
I couldn't do it, and wouldn't even think to, I think restrictive diets are dumb.0 -
Don’t expect a lot of support from the forums in regards to cutting out added processed sugars from your diet. There are a lot of “experts” that can’t seem to grasp that added sugars ARE a problem for many.
It’s hard but not impossible to cut out added sugars. The trick is to find all the hidden sugars in your food such as ketchup and salad dressings. It takes a good 30 days for cravings to go away, and expect some “flu-like” days as your body starts to detox. Find healthy substitutes such as fruit and medjool dates. You may also find that other foods might trigger sugar cravings such as white flour. You just need to figure out what is best for you.
There are a lot of websites and books on the subject for more in depth information.
Not to be pedantic, but two small things. 1. keto flu is from an electrolyte imbalance. When you cut carbs, you reduce insulin which reduces glycogen and water stores.... this flushes out electrolytes, and 2. the body doesn't detox itself from sugar. In fact, your body runs on glucose (your brain can run on Ketones). Glucose is so important to your body, that your body will start to create it's own by using fatty acids or amino acids. Essentially, glucenogenesis is the process of converting fats and proteins into sugar.5 -
Someone might have said this already, but I think that when people say that they cut out sugar, what they really mean is that they've cut out *refined* sugar. So those people would still eat fruits, but not fruit flavoured gummies, for example. I minimize refined sugar to a certain extent, but I still eat lots of fruit and I would never want to cut fruit out my life. It's so healthy and enjoyable!0
-
No joke. And fructose has a different absorption rate than glucose. You ignored that.Carlos_421 wrote: »creatureofchaos wrote: »
Funny thing - medical studies don’t agree with you.Carlos_421 wrote: »creatureofchaos wrote: »“Sugar is sugar” is total bull. Ask a diabetic or a doctor who researches insulin response. It’s well documented and has been uncontroversial for decades.
Whether that difference matters for weight loss is a different question.
Insulin response to different foods is not about types of sugar. It is a matter of fiber content and other differences between foods.
The reason a cookie spikes glucose/insulin faster than a piece of fruit is due to the fiber in the fruit slowing absorption. The sugar itself is the same chemical substance and will still be processed the same way, just more slowly because, again, fiber slows absorption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881888/
You clearly didn't understand what that study was about.
In that study, they compared the insulin and blood glucose response of taking straight glucose vs straight fructose vs a combo of glucose and fructose vs a portion of white bread.
Their findings showed that straight glucose had a greater impact than white bread which is perfectly in line with what I said above, considering that the fiber (and more complex carbs) in bread would result in a slower absorption rate than straight glucose.
2 -
creatureofchaos wrote: »“Sugar is sugar” is total bull. Ask a diabetic or a doctor who researches insulin response. It’s well documented and has been uncontroversial for decades.
Whether that difference matters for weight loss is a different question.
Different types of sugar metabolize at different rates and have a different impacts on BG and insulin responses; it's the reason why endurance athletes will consume a mixture of glucose and fructose during events (glucose is fast absorbing and fructose takes longer to break down). Insulin and BG is also affected by other components, like fiber, protein and fats. These components are beneficial to diabetics as they all slow the absorption of nutrients, which also reduces the impacts to BG levels, which reduces the impacts of insulin. Realistically, instead of having a spike for say 30 minutes, you would have a prolonged increase for 60 minutes.
With that said though, glucose in a candy bar is the same as glucose in fruit. The difference, as alluded to up thread, is the associated with other nutrients and how it can blunt the affects of BG.
@psuLemon
The bold is one of the reasons but the major one for endurance sports is that when exercising you hit an absorption rate limit if you just have straight glucose. 60g / hour is a common number (240 cals).
In endurance events you are burning calories far faster than that for extended periods of time so by eating a gel or drink with a 2:1 ratio of glucose to fructose utilising both digestive pathways in theory you can fuel at 90g of carbs per hour (360 cals) and have a far smaller caloric deficit / push harder for longer.
2 -
Here’s another study. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/373851
-
creatureofchaos wrote: »Here’s another study. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
This is an overfeed study. It shows the difference in hepatic de novo lipogenesis (conversion of carbohydrates to store fat). I suspect the application of this study isn't applicable to the people on this forum. Also, the consumption of fructose is really high (25%).
There is no doubt different absorption rates, albeit generally small. But again, glucose in candy is no different than glucose in fruit. The difference is the other nutrients and how they blunt the BG and insulin response.
Even more so, if a person does not need to worry about BG (i.e., they aren't diabetic), than the utility of these studies is not there.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »Don’t expect a lot of support from the forums in regards to cutting out added processed sugars from your diet. There are a lot of “experts” that can’t seem to grasp that added sugars ARE a problem for many.
It’s hard but not impossible to cut out added sugars. The trick is to find all the hidden sugars in your food such as ketchup and salad dressings. It takes a good 30 days for cravings to go away, and expect some “flu-like” days as your body starts to detox. Find healthy substitutes such as fruit and medjool dates. You may also find that other foods might trigger sugar cravings such as white flour. You just need to figure out what is best for you.
There are a lot of websites and books on the subject for more in depth information.
Your body doesn't treat added sugar or natural sugar any differently.
Is this a fact? Or what the sugar commercials tell us? I would truly like to see well cited studies on this, and have looked. But haven't seen much of anything.
Regardless, I think most folks would be well served by cutting back on sugar. And added sugars seem like the obvious place to cut back.
I don't think most would do better cutting down on intrinsic sugars. In fact, given the sad paucity of fruit and veg that the average American consumes, I think most would do better consuming MORE intrinsic sugar (as defined by the WHO).
I do think the average American would do better cutting back on added sugar, but the amount people consume varies widely, so not everyone needs to, obviously.
As for sugar, I don't see how your body wouldn't treat it the same in that sucrose (added sugar, normally) is easily broken down into glucose and fructose, and fruit has glucose, fructose, and sucrose -- they are the same things.
The difference is that fruit comes with fiber that slows the processing (which means the glucose spikes blood sugar less and is less likely to lead to an insulin spike that in some will leave them with lower than ideal blood sugar, which can be interpreted as hunger, as well as a crash in energy -- this can happen with all fast carbs, as I am sure you know, like refined grains too). The fiber also slows the processing of the fructose by the liver which is probably better too, although isn't going to be an issue if the overall consumption of sugar is moderate anyway, and not excessive.
I wouldn't say this is a difference between added and intrinsic sugar, but a difference depending on how the sugar is consumed. A banana is lower in fiber than oats with a little sugar and some raspberries. Watermelon could be "processed" faster than a bit of sugar in a BBQ rub consumed with meat and a lot of greens or even a salad with a salad dressing made with honey and mustard. A rhubarb sauce with added sugar will have less sugar and more fiber, normally, than an apple sauce made with just apples.
Again, I am sure you know all these, but I think this broader and more holistic look at diet and how sugar fits in can be important.
I find I do better lately eating very little added sugar, but part of that is that my preferred indulgences are savory ones. I don't think that makes them healthier or that someone with more sugar in the diet can't be just as healthy, if it's within a reasonable limit and calorie limit and in the context of a healthy diet.
I don't disagree with any of this. I hope my post didn't suggest otherwise?
No, I figured we agreed. Your post was just a good place to launch my little discussion of the topic.0 -
kristen8000 wrote: »I don't really think ANYONE cuts out "ALL SUGAR". I can see processed ones, such as baked goods, bread, pasta, processed foods in general, but to cut out ALL food that contains sugar is a bit much.
I couldn't do it, and wouldn't even think to, I think restrictive diets are dumb.
I've seen some who do it, but I wouldn't think it was something to aspire to for the vast majority of people (vegetables are important!) and I think it's rare.
As I said above, I think the average American probably should get MORE intrinsic sugar than he or she does, because of the foods it comes in (not because it's a different kind of sugar in and of itself).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions