Eliminating SUGAR
Replies
-
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.6
-
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.11 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
1 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.13 -
I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in February, and one of the lifestyle changes I made was to completely eliminate processed sugar. I eat a lot of fruit and veg, so I get quite a lot of unprocessed sugar in my diet.
Since then, I've lost over 40 pounds and reversed the diabetes. It's likely that I could re-introduce sugar without adverse impact - my understanding is that the reversal is largely down to weight loss rather than dietary micro-nutrients.
However, I lack self control and have a sweet tooth. I find abstinence is a lot easier to implement than moderation. So I am likely to continue with the abstinence.
As others have said, without medical reason there is limited benefit to cutting out sugar, so I'm not recommending my approach to anyone else.
As someone who has dealt with type 2's in clinical and home settings for 14 years, the response to "sugar" is extremely individual. I am also a diet and exercise controlled 2. I don't really believe in "reversal". I can say I have seen 2 DM patients eat the same meal and have completely different BS responses. My n=1 is I can eat unrefined carbs with little issue. BS will very rarely go over 110 post meal and be pre partial 2 hrs later. Give me bread or cheerios and goes up to 160 or so.🤔3 -
Some taste bad or aren't worth the calories to me. (At least that's my reason, I'm sure the poster has some other reason.)
Also, it makes little sense to say that "cutting down" on sugar is good, but moderation is not, as cutting down for some will lead to moderation. (Others of us don't really eat much sugar other than from fruits and other foods where it appears intrinsically, so I would disagree that cutting down is beneficial in that case.)0 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
Nutritionfacts is the Dr. Greger site, so what he really says is that one should not eat meat, eggs, or dairy in any amounts. I don't agree with that either.
However, wrt to the sugar argument, I don't think you are correct in asserting that it supports "no moderation" with sugar. Let's look and see:
"In 1776, each American consumed about 4 pounds of sugar annually. That had risen to 20 pounds by 1850 and 120 pounds by 1994. Today, we may be closer to ingesting 160 pounds of sugar every year, half of which may be fructose, taking up about 10 percent of our diet."
I don't know if he means added or intrinsic. To be honest, I know from reading other stuff from him that he thinks intrinsic is fine, but I think these stats could be distorted by including it, it's not clear. Also, averages where some people consume far more than others are useless (and basically irrelevant to the current conversation). I'd certainly agree that plenty of people consume excess sugar (especially those who drink lots of sugary soda). But that does not support a claim that sugar even in moderation is a problem.
"Even researchers paid by the likes of The Coca-Cola Company acknowledge sugar is empty calories without essential micronutrients. Concern has been raised, though, that sugar calories may be worse than just empty. Mounting evidence suggests that, in large enough amounts, added fructose in the form of table sugar and high fructose corn syrup may trigger processes that can lead to liver toxicity and other chronic diseases."
Note again "in large enough amounts." So not actually anti moderation.
"Under the American Heart Association’s sugar guidelines, most American women should consume no more than 100 calories per day from added sugars, with the maximum for most American men being 150 daily calories. That means one can of soda could take us over the top for the entire day.
The World Health Organization recommends we reduce our added sugars, along with consumption of salt, trans fats, and saturated fats, because consumption of such foods may be the cause of at least 14 million deaths every year from chronic diseases."
Hmm -- moderation.
And the specific concerns of these organizations is (1) unlimited added sugar often comes in foods that easily add lots of cals and not much else -- dessert type foods that are high cal in large part due to added fat, and soda which many can drink without any satiation; and (2) even if included in a calorie limited diet, too much added sugar can crowd out important nutrients.
Neither speaks of "sugar" either, both are referring to ADDED sugar.6 -
Some taste bad or aren't worth the calories to me. (At least that's my reason, I'm sure the poster has some other reason.)
Also, it makes little sense to say that "cutting down" on sugar is good, but moderation is not, as cutting down for some will lead to moderation. (Others of us don't really eat much sugar other than from fruits and other foods where it appears intrinsically, so I would disagree that cutting down is beneficial in that case.)
That's my reason too ... mushrooms, for example, aren't good even in moderation!! Just ... no.
Personally, the amount of sugar I consume is relatively low anyway. If I have cravings for something, my cravings tend toward the salty rather than the sweet.4 -
-
I found that simply being on MFP and tracking my foods, I learned to steer away from added sugars anyway. I moved away from simple carbs and sugary foods was part of it.
I can't say that it was entirely life changing apart from the weight loss although I do notice more when I do consume high sugar/high carb items. And I feel better in general.2 -
Firm believer in CICO but, i remember reading about how natural foods with lots of sugar in them take longer to break down and convert to fat then refined sugar products like Candy, cakes, candy bars..ect. In my opinion, if you are exercising daily and very active, this might not have any effect on weight loss, but if you are relying on soley calorie deficiet without exercise, then i can see how it may be possible for refined sugars to convert to fat before the body has a chance to burn it.0
-
psychod787 wrote: »I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in February, and one of the lifestyle changes I made was to completely eliminate processed sugar. I eat a lot of fruit and veg, so I get quite a lot of unprocessed sugar in my diet.
Since then, I've lost over 40 pounds and reversed the diabetes. It's likely that I could re-introduce sugar without adverse impact - my understanding is that the reversal is largely down to weight loss rather than dietary micro-nutrients.
However, I lack self control and have a sweet tooth. I find abstinence is a lot easier to implement than moderation. So I am likely to continue with the abstinence.
As others have said, without medical reason there is limited benefit to cutting out sugar, so I'm not recommending my approach to anyone else.
As someone who has dealt with type 2's in clinical and home settings for 14 years, the response to "sugar" is extremely individual. I am also a diet and exercise controlled 2. I don't really believe in "reversal". I can say I have seen 2 DM patients eat the same meal and have completely different BS responses. My n=1 is I can eat unrefined carbs with little issue. BS will very rarely go over 110 post meal and be pre partial 2 hrs later. Give me bread or cheerios and goes up to 160 or so.🤔
Why do you not believe in reversal? The University of Tyneside has done a lot of research on it. My synopsis of this research is:- Everyone has a person fat threshold. When that threshold is breached, fat starts to store around the liver.
- Insulin resistance starts to build
- There are adverse two cycles at work, one affecting the liver and the other the pancreas
- Eventually, this process starts to damage the beta cells in the pancreas (whcih are responsible for insulin production)
- The beta cells initially go into some form of hibernation. If the process goes on too long, they are damages irreparably.
- If there is an extreme calorific deficit, the fat around the live can reverse fairly quickly. If the diet was implemented soon enough, the beta cells eventually recover.
- I have no idea is the insulin resistance eventually reverses or not. If it doesn't, then I guess that's a sense in which reversal is impossible.
I am a doctor; however I am a doctor of maths not medicine. So I may have completely mis-represented or over simplified the research in this synopsis. If you want more details, the trial which inspired my diet is summarised here (46% of participants achieved remisssion):
https://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk/Pubfiles/DiRECT Results Lancet.pdf
There is a lot more information on remission and diet here:
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal/#publicinformation
My n=1 sample is that my 1AC has gone from 50 mmol/mol (over 6.5%) to 36 mmol/mol (well below 6%, and so outside the range for pre-diabetes).2 -
psychod787 wrote: »I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in February, and one of the lifestyle changes I made was to completely eliminate processed sugar. I eat a lot of fruit and veg, so I get quite a lot of unprocessed sugar in my diet.
Since then, I've lost over 40 pounds and reversed the diabetes. It's likely that I could re-introduce sugar without adverse impact - my understanding is that the reversal is largely down to weight loss rather than dietary micro-nutrients.
However, I lack self control and have a sweet tooth. I find abstinence is a lot easier to implement than moderation. So I am likely to continue with the abstinence.
As others have said, without medical reason there is limited benefit to cutting out sugar, so I'm not recommending my approach to anyone else.
As someone who has dealt with type 2's in clinical and home settings for 14 years, the response to "sugar" is extremely individual. I am also a diet and exercise controlled 2. I don't really believe in "reversal". I can say I have seen 2 DM patients eat the same meal and have completely different BS responses. My n=1 is I can eat unrefined carbs with little issue. BS will very rarely go over 110 post meal and be pre partial 2 hrs later. Give me bread or cheerios and goes up to 160 or so.🤔
Why do you not believe in reversal? The University of Tyneside has done a lot of research on it. My synopsis of this research is:- Everyone has a person fat threshold. When that threshold is breached, fat starts to store around the liver.
- Insulin resistance starts to build
- There are adverse two cycles at work, one affecting the liver and the other the pancreas
- Eventually, this process starts to damage the beta cells in the pancreas (whcih are responsible for insulin production)
- The beta cells initially go into some form of hibernation. If the process goes on too long, they are damages irreparably.
- If there is an extreme calorific deficit, the fat around the live can reverse fairly quickly. If the diet was implemented soon enough, the beta cells eventually recover.
- I have no idea is the insulin resistance eventually reverses or not. If it doesn't, then I guess that's a sense in which reversal is impossible.
I am a doctor; however I am a doctor of maths not medicine. So I may have completely mis-represented or over simplified the research in this synopsis. If you want more details, the trial which inspired my diet is summarised here (46% of participants achieved remisssion):
https://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk/Pubfiles/DiRECT Results Lancet.pdf
There is a lot more information on remission and diet here:
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal/#publicinformation
My n=1 sample is that my 1AC has gone from 50 mmol/mol (over 6.5%) to 36 mmol/mol (well below 6%, and so outside the range for pre-diabetes).
If you went to your MD and asked them, "Am I a stilltype 2?" They would most likely say, "Yes." I had a fasting of 339 and A1C of 6.4. I see you use mmol, so no likely American. I believe it's much like the new Hep C treatments we use. They have a 90%+ SVR rate. No detectable virus in the bloodstream, but we cant call it a "cure". I believe in a reversal of symptoms with DM, but we are not cured. Maybe "remission" is a better word for my thoughts on it.2 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »Firm believer in CICO but, i remember reading about how natural foods with lots of sugar in them take longer to break down and convert to fat then refined sugar products like Candy, cakes, candy bars..ect. In my opinion, if you are exercising daily and very active, this might not have any effect on weight loss, but if you are relying on soley calorie deficiet without exercise, then i can see how it may be possible for refined sugars to convert to fat before the body has a chance to burn it.
Couple of things.
First, the sugar in "refined sugar products" is not different from the sugar in whole foods. What is different is that the whole foods are likely to have more fiber, which will slow down the processing. This isn't always true, however -- people eat bananas before running because they are processed quickly, likely more quickly than, say, an oatmeal cookie with raisins or the like.
The cookie is going to have more cals (and be poorer fuel for a race anyway) because of the fat it contains.
Second, how fast you process it might make a difference for satiety, and if you truly eat a ridiculous amount of added sugar (especially in things like soda), then it could lead to negative consequences such as NAFL disease (although normally in this and also T2D a gain of body fat tends to be the main contributing factor). But it has zero to do with weight gain. Even if there were a gain of fat from that specific item (which is unlikely since if you are maintaining a deficit glycogen stores won't be full, so carbs will end up going to those, and of course even if fat were added your body prefers to do it with fat -- which cookies and cakes certainly supply, or various other foods one is eating -- since it is easier and takes less energy), calorie balance must determine whether NET fat is gained. That is, even if calories from a cookie were processed so fast that they added fat in an hour, the fact is you'd still need energy to burn so would end up burning more body fat in that case if you ran out of consumed calories (and would likely have to use extra energy to add and lose the fat, which is why this isn't likely how it works as our bodies are quite efficient).7 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »Firm believer in CICO but, i remember reading about how natural foods with lots of sugar in them take longer to break down and convert to fat then refined sugar products like Candy, cakes, candy bars..ect. In my opinion, if you are exercising daily and very active, this might not have any effect on weight loss, but if you are relying on soley calorie deficiet without exercise, then i can see how it may be possible for refined sugars to convert to fat before the body has a chance to burn it.
Let's assume for minute that your understanding of the physiology of the storage of fat from carbs is correct (it's not and I'll explain why in a minute). How would the body have a net storage of fat in a calorie deficit?
Now as to why your understanding of the fat storage physiology is not accurate; we very rarely store carbs/ glucose as fat (and even more rarely do we store protein as fat). To do so requires a metabolically expensive process called de novo lipogenesis. The body has a very high storage capacity for glucose both in the liver and the muscles.
When the body is in a calorie surplus, the macro nutrient the body most prefers to store as fat is dietary fat. So, this whole premise
is a false one for all practical purposes.i can see how it may be possible for refined sugars to convert to fat before the body has a chance to burn it10 -
AngelZealot wrote: »I am no stranger to tracking and diets. I've only been sucessful at losing weight a few times in my life, and they were all while tracking either calories, or points in weight watchers. What I am inquiring about is the topic of sugar. I am reading a book about why to eliminate it entirely. I'm hoping to hear sucess stories of people who have eliminated it, what the benefits are, etc. Tips and suggestions are much encouraged!
Type 2 diabetes runs in my family. I eliminated added sugar and fruit completely for 9 months and my blood sugar level got in the normal range. (Also lost weight). I reintroduced added sugar/fruit to my diet and my blood sugar levels have remained normal - even during 2 pregnancies. So I guess it was worth it? I have to say though that emotionally it was not great for me. I felt very deprived. I'm much happier practicing moderation. I love treats.4 -
I laugh when i think about this. To get the amount of sugar in a 20oz bottle of soda, someone would have to eat 2 or so feet of sugar cane. Damn... think about all that fiber! Lol4
-
Let's assume for minute that your understanding of the physiology of the storage of fat from carbs is correct (it's not and I'll explain why in a minute). How would the body have a net storage of fat in a calorie deficit?
Now as to why your understanding of the fat storage physiology is not accurate; we very rarely store carbs/ glucose as fat (and even more rarely do we store protein as fat). To do so requires a metabolically expensive process called de novo lipogenesis. The body has a very high storage capacity for glucose both in the liver and the muscles.
When the body is in a calorie surplus, the macro nutrient the body most prefers to store as fat is dietary fat. So, this whole premise
is a false one for all practical purposes.i can see how it may be possible for refined sugars to convert to fat before the body has a chance to burn it
I never said this to be true. I said i read this somewhere, a long time ago before i really had an understanding of CICO, before even nutrition labels were on products.
Now, what i was trying to say, is lets assume two identical twins did a study where both were in a equal calorie deficeit but one ate only natural foods with same amount of sugar as the other twin who ate pure refined sugar. Both ate the same amount of calories and both were not active (lets assume sitting down never moving for a few weeks) unheard of i know, but for arguments sake, my opinion is the natural food twin would lose faster then the refined twin. But you are probably right that in the end they will have lost the same amount of weight.
Now use my terrible analogy again, but this time with both being at a calorie deficeit using exercise. My opinion is the natural food test subject would lose faster but in the end most likely both lose the same.
Anyway, my head hurts, and honestly lost interest in this discussion, im done.
1 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »
Let's assume for minute that your understanding of the physiology of the storage of fat from carbs is correct (it's not and I'll explain why in a minute). How would the body have a net storage of fat in a calorie deficit?
Now as to why your understanding of the fat storage physiology is not accurate; we very rarely store carbs/ glucose as fat (and even more rarely do we store protein as fat). To do so requires a metabolically expensive process called de novo lipogenesis. The body has a very high storage capacity for glucose both in the liver and the muscles.
When the body is in a calorie surplus, the macro nutrient the body most prefers to store as fat is dietary fat. So, this whole premise
is a false one for all practical purposes.i can see how it may be possible for refined sugars to convert to fat before the body has a chance to burn it
I never said this to be true. I said i read this somewhere, a long time ago before i really had an understanding of CICO, before even nutrition labels were on products.
Now, what i was trying to say, is lets assume two identical twins did a study where both were in a equal calorie deficeit but one ate only natural foods with same amount of sugar as the other twin who ate pure refined sugar. Both ate the same amount of calories and both were not active (lets assume sitting down never moving for a few weeks) unheard of i know, but for arguments sake, my opinion is the natural food twin would lose faster then the refined twin. But you are probably right that in the end they will have lost the same amount of weight.
Now use my terrible analogy again, but this time with both being at a calorie deficeit using exercise. My opinion is the natural food test subject would lose faster but in the end most likely both lose the same.
Anyway, my head hurts, and honestly lost interest in this discussion, im done.
Ohhh.. are fiber and protein and fat equated?4 -
1
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »
When the TEF of fiber, protein, and fat have been equated, given that the tdee of each twin is "magically" identical, there would be no difference in weight gained or lost. The body does not view calories as processed or less processed. All it percieves is energy. Now as far as a librium intakes, well yes, less processed foods tend to be higher in fiber and protein. So, people may have to eat less to get sated vs hyperprocessed. Check out the Kevin Hall study. Fiber fills people up quicker in general. There is some evidence that the micro biome plays a role in satiety. It also seems to boost glp1. Higher protein will fill people up quicker. There is the protein leverage hypothesis that might have something to do with it. Protein also seems to release glucagon from the liver that increases fullness and and pyy and cck.6 -
After I cut back drastically on what was my veryyyyyy heavy sugar intake the results started showing ( feeling rather ) within days..... First off the energy crashes are gone.... I had NO IDEA how bad that was until I made the switch.... I'm 54, have had multiple surgeries for broken bones and such, ( I do my own stunts!! ) The vast majority of joint pain is now gone...... I am taking creatine and glucosamine chondroitin too... But I was already taking them before I quit sugars.... It was a game changer to say the least...... Write me if you have any questions.....
2 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.
Sent link with more than just “fact” in the title. Anyone wanting more in depth info on sugar (and other things) might want to check some of it out. Just trying to help. LOL back at ya!
1 -
-
deannalfisher wrote: »
I think we have to look at it like this. Certain foods maybe more supportive of your goals than others. Good/Bad goes back to the black/white thinking we humans like. I think in an environment where people are not counting calories, but acting more intuitively with foods, certain foods are easier to maintain your weight or even lose weight on. Is it possible to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli? Yes. Easy to do if you are not adding loads of extra calories to them? Probably not.6 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.
Sent link with more than just “fact” in the title. Anyone wanting more in depth info on sugar (and other things) might want to check some of it out. Just trying to help. LOL back at ya!
As I explained above, the link did not support the claim that sugar in any amount is bad for us. It suggested that too much sugar (meaning added sugar) is too common in the average diet (although this is in large part due to its association with calories that often come as much from added fat). You could avoid the bad things discussed in the link by using moderation combined with a healthy overall diet and not being obese. (Although the author would push other things too, like cutting out all animal products.)8 -
BrotherBill913 wrote: »After I cut back drastically on what was my veryyyyyy heavy sugar intake the results started showing ( feeling rather ) within days..... First off the energy crashes are gone.... I had NO IDEA how bad that was until I made the switch.... I'm 54, have had multiple surgeries for broken bones and such, ( I do my own stunts!! ) The vast majority of joint pain is now gone...... I am taking creatine and glucosamine chondroitin too... But I was already taking them before I quit sugars.... It was a game changer to say the least...... Write me if you have any questions.....
So you start by saying that you were NOT using moderation, but in fact had an extremely heavy sugar intake (I am assuming added sugar, correct me if I am wrong). I am not surprised, given that, that you might have been experiencing energy crashes, I think many do when they eat lots of refined carbs and not enough fiber and protein. Also, if you quite eating what seems to have been a large part of your diet, hopefully you replaced them with more nutrient-dense foods, which often would be expected to have a positive effect too.
What I don't get is attributing this to "quit[ting] sugars." Even your first sentence sounds more like moderation (cutting back drastically on a very heavy intake), and even if not there's no reason to suppose that the result of someone who ate in moderation (say like what the guidelines provided earlier in the thread recommend) vs. none at all. (And if the claim is about intrinsic sugars, not just added, I would say that's not supported by any credible recommendations.)5 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.
Sent link with more than just “fact” in the title. Anyone wanting more in depth info on sugar (and other things) might want to check some of it out. Just trying to help. LOL back at ya!
As I explained above, the link did not support the claim that sugar in any amount is bad for us. It suggested that too much sugar (meaning added sugar) is too common in the average diet (although this is in large part due to its association with calories that often come as much from added fat). You could avoid the bad things discussed in the link by using moderation combined with a healthy overall diet and not being obese. (Although the author would push other things too, like cutting out all animal products.)
I agree ma'am. I have seen the data and the amount of energy from carbs has declined since the turn of the 20th century and the amount of energy from fat has increased. As far as add "sugar", imho the biggest increase has been sweetened beverages. In most research, liquid calories are not compensated for very well. Wow... the woo's are strong in this thread...3
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