Eliminating SUGAR
Options
Replies
-
deannalfisher wrote: »
And for me, peanuts and eggs aren't particular good ... for me.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »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! Lol
I think the way people normally eat it is to chew a hunk of cane to extract the sweetness, then spit out the woody bits.
If so:
* You don't have the fiber to slow down digesting the sugar!
* It goes straight to your bloodstream!!
* It spikes your insulin!!!
* It's just like drinking soda, except for the chewing!!!!
Open for discussion: How many calories all that chewing burns.
Yes ma'am. I am a Florida Boy. My grandfather used to raise a small 1/4 acre patch of sugar cane he would give to the cows. He would cut pieces with his knife and give it to us as kids. Chew and spit. Lol1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »I won't say I've eliminated sugar. For all practical purposes I have in fact done just that but I won't say it because of the irrational replies it invokes from people who act offended by the possibility.
For me, it came about gradually by phasing out categories of "foods" one at a time. Didn't switch to sweeteners. Just got used to, and eventually came to prefer foods unsweetened. I never swore an oath of sugar abstinence though. Last year I might have made a cup of hot cocoa three or four times. I might have three or four next year too. If pressed I could come up with more examples of very occasional use.
One of the last regular uses was adding brown sugar to the morning porridge but I weaned myself off that and now it's fine either naturally sweetened with fruit or savory. I've lost over 60 pounds so far and have another 40 or so to go to get to normal or healthy weight. When I get there, maybe I'll consider having an occasional dessert. But until then it's easier to skip them altogether than struggle with moderation. If moderating food came easy I wouldn't have become obese in the first place. To all the people who will have the irresistible compulsion to click disagree, I remind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do. And maybe I'll add that if the original poster decides to eliminate added sugars, that won't affect you either.
So you don't eat any fruits? Where do you get some of the key vitamins and minerals from then?
I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets.
FTR, sugar beets are a different cultivar from regular vegetable beets. Very different. Look more like a fat, stubby parsnip.
Both got that delicious sugar.
Sure. Lots in the one case (sugar beets), not much in the other (regular red beets).
Dog cookies and Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Milk Chocolate Macadamia Cookies are both "cookies", too, but I'd only eat the latter. Just not the same, not close.
Even if in the debate section, the beet thing . . . ?
According to https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169145/nutrients , about three-quarters of the calories in regular beets are from sugar. I wouldn't call that "not so much, even if it's less than in the beets grown for sugar.
Just to backtrack: A PP (in which the person said they eat fruit and occasionally hot cocoa), but had reduced sugar significantly while losing weight, now preferring most things unsweetened, to the point of eliminating sugar for all practical purposes. Given the fruit comment, it seemed (to me) pretty clear that this meant elimiating added sugar. Let's call this "Poster A", or PA for short.
A later poster (Poster B, or PB) said something along the lines that PA had posted in a different thread that s/he ate beets, and that sugar cane and beets are where refined sugar come from. This was, IMO, frankly kind of ridiculous way to taunt someone for posting what PA had written.
That's where I pointed out that those were different beets.
So, yes, around 3/4 of the whopping 35 calories in a 2" regular vegetable beet come from sugar. While I don't consider that "much" sugar, particularly, those 24-ish calories of sugar in each regular vegetable beet still don't seem like substantial hypocrisy on the part of someone who has said they've found that they now prefer things unsweetened, especially in a diet that explicitly contains fruit, and the rare hot cocoa.
That was the context in which I mentioned that regular vegetable beets are a different cultivar from sugar beets, with materially less sugar than sugar beets, which is true. The point was never that regular beets contain no sugar. Of course they do. They're also a very nutritious food, with a small bit of protein (incomplete, but 15% of calories!
), fiber, and some helpful micros.
None of which matters, either, in context of commenting on the poor factual basis for using someone's beet-eating to make fun of their comment about eating minimal sugar, on account of sugar being made from beets.
Beets are good. I like beets. They contain sugar. Meh.
I had to reread Poster A's post several times before I saw the fruit mention in the third paragraph. When he talks about "For all practical purposes I have in fact [eliminated sugar]" in the first paragraph it wasn't clear that he was referring solely to added sugar, and with that lack of clarity I feel Poster B's comment about beets was fair if she thought he was referring to all sugar.
Now that I see that fruit reference, I get where you have been coming from.
Because of this potential for confusion, I am careful to specify "added sugar", just like I will never say "processed foods" here on MFP when I mean "ultra processed foods" like the Brazilian definition.
Agreed: Clarity is a good thing to strive for, especially when it comes to terminology that's often misinterpreted. Careful reading, ditto.
The bigger deal, IMO, is that I feel that if I'm an advocate for a particular point of view (in this case, the point of view that balanced nutrition is really important, but sugar isn't Special Evil as a population-wide generality), then taunting those who disagree is a very ineffective tactic for persuading people who are on the fence, or just confused at the moment. In fact, it's likely to be counterproductive.
I get that it's sort of tempting, maybe even fun. Disagreement is a fine thing in posts, maybe even pointed disagreement, as appropriate. Taunting, and the piling-on effect of that, that happens on threads sometimes, in addition? Not effective. Not persuasive. Not informative.
But I'm getting dangerously meta.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »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.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?
Funny @lemurcat2 , that's kind of how I am doing things these days. Making general statements are hard. As we know, there are outliers on all things, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to defend my thoughts.
Yeah, I think we mostly agree, with maybe some minor disagreements on exactly why the Kevin Hall study had the results it did (and maybe not even that so much once communication difficulties are ironed out!).
On a side note I finally had time to listen to James Krieger do a complete breakdown of the Hall study. One thing I noticed was while the energy density of the food offered was nearly identical, the density of the eaten food was not. The hyperprocessed was 1.3 and the unprocessed was 1.08/GM. It might be coincidental that one of the research studies I read showed that the average density of hunter gather groups was between 1-1.1cals/ gm.
Yes, that's one of the things I thought was significant. The macros of the eaten food were very different too.
I think time it takes to consume food is important, and I think having the types of foods people often like to eat even if not hungry are both significant. IMO, that allows for overeating even if you'd be perfectly satiated if you ate reasonable cals of the food in question and then stopped and waited a bit. Satiety often takes time to kick in and might not matter if you are eating purely for pleasure.
(I also think fiber consumed mostly as an addition to a lemonade beverage, as in the hyperprocessed part of the study, is not the equivalent of fiber in food, in part because of the time food takes to consume/digest, but also because of satiety.)1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »I won't say I've eliminated sugar. For all practical purposes I have in fact done just that but I won't say it because of the irrational replies it invokes from people who act offended by the possibility.
For me, it came about gradually by phasing out categories of "foods" one at a time. Didn't switch to sweeteners. Just got used to, and eventually came to prefer foods unsweetened. I never swore an oath of sugar abstinence though. Last year I might have made a cup of hot cocoa three or four times. I might have three or four next year too. If pressed I could come up with more examples of very occasional use.
One of the last regular uses was adding brown sugar to the morning porridge but I weaned myself off that and now it's fine either naturally sweetened with fruit or savory. I've lost over 60 pounds so far and have another 40 or so to go to get to normal or healthy weight. When I get there, maybe I'll consider having an occasional dessert. But until then it's easier to skip them altogether than struggle with moderation. If moderating food came easy I wouldn't have become obese in the first place. To all the people who will have the irresistible compulsion to click disagree, I remind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do. And maybe I'll add that if the original poster decides to eliminate added sugars, that won't affect you either.
So you don't eat any fruits? Where do you get some of the key vitamins and minerals from then?
I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets.
FTR, sugar beets are a different cultivar from regular vegetable beets. Very different. Look more like a fat, stubby parsnip.
Both got that delicious sugar.
Sure. Lots in the one case (sugar beets), not much in the other (regular red beets).
Dog cookies and Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Milk Chocolate Macadamia Cookies are both "cookies", too, but I'd only eat the latter. Just not the same, not close.
Even if in the debate section, the beet thing . . . ?
According to https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169145/nutrients , about three-quarters of the calories in regular beets are from sugar. I wouldn't call that "not so much, even if it's less than in the beets grown for sugar.
Just to backtrack: A PP (in which the person said they eat fruit and occasionally hot cocoa), but had reduced sugar significantly while losing weight, now preferring most things unsweetened, to the point of eliminating sugar for all practical purposes. Given the fruit comment, it seemed (to me) pretty clear that this meant elimiating added sugar. Let's call this "Poster A", or PA for short.
A later poster (Poster B, or PB) said something along the lines that PA had posted in a different thread that s/he ate beets, and that sugar cane and beets are where refined sugar come from. This was, IMO, frankly kind of ridiculous way to taunt someone for posting what PA had written.
That's where I pointed out that those were different beets.
So, yes, around 3/4 of the whopping 35 calories in a 2" regular vegetable beet come from sugar. While I don't consider that "much" sugar, particularly, those 24-ish calories of sugar in each regular vegetable beet still don't seem like substantial hypocrisy on the part of someone who has said they've found that they now prefer things unsweetened, especially in a diet that explicitly contains fruit, and the rare hot cocoa.
That was the context in which I mentioned that regular vegetable beets are a different cultivar from sugar beets, with materially less sugar than sugar beets, which is true. The point was never that regular beets contain no sugar. Of course they do. They're also a very nutritious food, with a small bit of protein (incomplete, but 15% of calories! ), fiber, and some helpful micros.
None of which matters, either, in context of commenting on the poor factual basis for using someone's beet-eating to make fun of their comment about eating minimal sugar, on account of sugar being made from beets.
Beets are good. I like beets. They contain sugar. Meh.
I had to reread Poster A's post several times before I saw the fruit mention in the third paragraph. When he talks about "For all practical purposes I have in fact [eliminated sugar]" in the first paragraph it wasn't clear that he was referring solely to added sugar, and with that lack of clarity I feel Poster B's comment about beets was fair if she thought he was referring to all sugar.
Now that I see that fruit reference, I get where you have been coming from.
Because of this potential for confusion, I am careful to specify "added sugar", just like I will never say "processed foods" here on MFP when I mean "ultra processed foods" like the Brazilian definition.
Agreed: Clarity is a good thing to strive for, especially when it comes to terminology that's often misinterpreted. Careful reading, ditto.
The bigger deal, IMO, is that I feel that if I'm an advocate for a particular point of view (in this case, the point of view that balanced nutrition is really important, but sugar isn't Special Evil as a population-wide generality), then taunting those who disagree is a very ineffective tactic for persuading people who are on the fence, or just confused at the moment. In fact, it's likely to be counterproductive.
I get that it's sort of tempting, maybe even fun. Disagreement is a fine thing in posts, maybe even pointed disagreement, as appropriate. Taunting, and the piling-on effect of that, that happens on threads sometimes, in addition? Not effective. Not persuasive. Not informative.
But I'm getting dangerously meta.
I don't (usually) see it as taunting. I see it as asking for clarity -- if one has not eliminated all sugar, why claim one has? -- and making the point that sugar is sugar. Foods are different, but if it's specifically the sugar that's the problem, why would foods that contain sugar like fruit (or beets) be totally fine, and if one wants to argue that foods with sugar should be eliminated, obviously there's no good basis for fruit, veg, etc. The point about beets, even if mistaken, seemed to me to be beet sugar is beet sugar.
What I see as a bigger problem in these discussions is people who, in fact, eat ADDED sugar in moderation and see that as almost eliminating it (so they say they cut it out) since they used to eat much more claiming that there is something unhealthy about others eating it in moderation (which they seem to assume must mean eating way more than they do and likely too much). In my opinion, that shades into the wrong focus on "eating X food is unhealthy" vs. "eating too much of X is unhealthy" or, even better, "eating a diet full of A, B, and C is good, and if you do that you can only fit in so much of X, Y, and Z." (I'll add that although everyone in this discussion does seem to be talking about added sugar, and mostly sensibly, it is not uncommon for people to assert that sugar even intrinsic is bad, and to use the accurate claim that sugar is sugar for that argument. That -- IMO, harmful -- misunderstanding that one should worry about fruit and veg consumption as a bad thing comes mostly from the misunderstanding that there's something specifically about sugar that is harming us, and thus means that the people making points that in fact sugar itself is not harmful within the context of a healthful, nutrient dense, and calorie appropriate diet are right on.
Terms are often misunderstood at MFP too (I say this as someone who tends to take terms seriously, so for whom cutting out processed foods totally would mean lots of nutrient dense helpful foods, especially as I really don't eat much of or think much about what many others seem to define as the only real processed foods (i.e., super ultra processed and not nutrient dense). Thus, if people proclaim the superiority of cutting out sugar, I would not assume random other readers wouldn't think that's part of the demonization that too often means they worry about fruit being bad or even think it's a positive to assert that they eat less than 5 g of sugar a day (I've seen that here), which essentially means almost no veg. So actively pointing out how wrong that is isn't a battle I will attack.0 -
:eyeroll0
-
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »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.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?
Funny @lemurcat2 , that's kind of how I am doing things these days. Making general statements are hard. As we know, there are outliers on all things, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to defend my thoughts.
Yeah, I think we mostly agree, with maybe some minor disagreements on exactly why the Kevin Hall study had the results it did (and maybe not even that so much once communication difficulties are ironed out!).
On a side note I finally had time to listen to James Krieger do a complete breakdown of the Hall study. One thing I noticed was while the energy density of the food offered was nearly identical, the density of the eaten food was not. The hyperprocessed was 1.3 and the unprocessed was 1.08/GM. It might be coincidental that one of the research studies I read showed that the average density of hunter gather groups was between 1-1.1cals/ gm.
Yes, that's one of the things I thought was significant. The macros of the eaten food were very different too.
I think time it takes to consume food is important, and I think having the types of foods people often like to eat even if not hungry are both significant. IMO, that allows for overeating even if you'd be perfectly satiated if you ate reasonable cals of the food in question and then stopped and waited a bit. Satiety often takes time to kick in and might not matter if you are eating purely for pleasure.
(I also think fiber consumed mostly as an addition to a lemonade beverage, as in the hyperprocessed part of the study, is not the equivalent of fiber in food, in part because of the time food takes to consume/digest, but also because of satiety.)
I think we are on the same page to a point. My interest is more how people intuitively interact with their food environment. People might do just fine eating hyperprocessed and waiting, but that is not how MOST people interact with food. They simply eat to satiety and stop. All your points are valid imho. Could be a myriad of things. While people like you and I know correlation is not causation, but this study lines up with other studies in animals. It is not ideal to use then together because they were not designed to be used in conjunction, but still can be used to give glimpses of causation. I an not a food fear monger. Do I think having some icecream 2-3 times a week will make you obese as long as servings are small or moderate? HELL NO.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »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.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?
Funny @lemurcat2 , that's kind of how I am doing things these days. Making general statements are hard. As we know, there are outliers on all things, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to defend my thoughts.
Yeah, I think we mostly agree, with maybe some minor disagreements on exactly why the Kevin Hall study had the results it did (and maybe not even that so much once communication difficulties are ironed out!).
On a side note I finally had time to listen to James Krieger do a complete breakdown of the Hall study. One thing I noticed was while the energy density of the food offered was nearly identical, the density of the eaten food was not. The hyperprocessed was 1.3 and the unprocessed was 1.08/GM. It might be coincidental that one of the research studies I read showed that the average density of hunter gather groups was between 1-1.1cals/ gm.
Yes, that's one of the things I thought was significant. The macros of the eaten food were very different too.
I think time it takes to consume food is important, and I think having the types of foods people often like to eat even if not hungry are both significant. IMO, that allows for overeating even if you'd be perfectly satiated if you ate reasonable cals of the food in question and then stopped and waited a bit. Satiety often takes time to kick in and might not matter if you are eating purely for pleasure.
(I also think fiber consumed mostly as an addition to a lemonade beverage, as in the hyperprocessed part of the study, is not the equivalent of fiber in food, in part because of the time food takes to consume/digest, but also because of satiety.)
I think we are on the same page to a point. My interest is more how people intuitively interact with their food environment. People might do just fine eating hyperprocessed and waiting, but that is not how MOST people interact with food. They simply eat to satiety and stop. All your points are valid imho. Could be a myriad of things. While people like you and I know correlation is not causation, but this study lines up with other studies in animals. It is not ideal to use then together because they were not designed to be used in conjunction, but still can be used to give glimpses of causation. I an not a food fear monger. Do I think having some icecream 2-3 times a week will make you obese as long as servings are small or moderate? HELL NO.
I think we are mainly in agreement but just coming from different past experiences and ways of gaining. I decided against the longer reply I started, but will just say that not eating between meals and controlling what I put on my plate and not having seconds and, in restaurants, deciding in advance how much of the meal I would eat and sticking to that are all non-food-choice based tools that for me were very important and which I do think are as likely to be useful to the average person as "eat only less processed foods."
Of course I say this as someone who probably did eat a much more whole foods cooked from scratch kind of diet when gaining than say the average American (whether thin or fat). So these things were important for me. Not being able to choose meals that kept me from being hungry (and therefore eating too much out of hunger) wasn't my issue. Using food for reasons other than hunger and enjoying it even when not actually hungry are more things I dealt with, and I don't think this is uncommon or only issues for people with eating disorders.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »I won't say I've eliminated sugar. For all practical purposes I have in fact done just that but I won't say it because of the irrational replies it invokes from people who act offended by the possibility.
For me, it came about gradually by phasing out categories of "foods" one at a time. Didn't switch to sweeteners. Just got used to, and eventually came to prefer foods unsweetened. I never swore an oath of sugar abstinence though. Last year I might have made a cup of hot cocoa three or four times. I might have three or four next year too. If pressed I could come up with more examples of very occasional use.
One of the last regular uses was adding brown sugar to the morning porridge but I weaned myself off that and now it's fine either naturally sweetened with fruit or savory. I've lost over 60 pounds so far and have another 40 or so to go to get to normal or healthy weight. When I get there, maybe I'll consider having an occasional dessert. But until then it's easier to skip them altogether than struggle with moderation. If moderating food came easy I wouldn't have become obese in the first place. To all the people who will have the irresistible compulsion to click disagree, I remind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do. And maybe I'll add that if the original poster decides to eliminate added sugars, that won't affect you either.
So you don't eat any fruits? Where do you get some of the key vitamins and minerals from then?
I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets.
FTR, sugar beets are a different cultivar from regular vegetable beets. Very different. Look more like a fat, stubby parsnip.
Both got that delicious sugar.
Sure. Lots in the one case (sugar beets), not much in the other (regular red beets).
Dog cookies and Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Milk Chocolate Macadamia Cookies are both "cookies", too, but I'd only eat the latter. Just not the same, not close.
Even if in the debate section, the beet thing . . . ?
According to https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169145/nutrients , about three-quarters of the calories in regular beets are from sugar. I wouldn't call that "not so much, even if it's less than in the beets grown for sugar.
Just to backtrack: A PP (in which the person said they eat fruit and occasionally hot cocoa), but had reduced sugar significantly while losing weight, now preferring most things unsweetened, to the point of eliminating sugar for all practical purposes. Given the fruit comment, it seemed (to me) pretty clear that this meant elimiating added sugar. Let's call this "Poster A", or PA for short.
A later poster (Poster B, or PB) said something along the lines that PA had posted in a different thread that s/he ate beets, and that sugar cane and beets are where refined sugar come from. This was, IMO, frankly kind of ridiculous way to taunt someone for posting what PA had written.
That's where I pointed out that those were different beets.
So, yes, around 3/4 of the whopping 35 calories in a 2" regular vegetable beet come from sugar. While I don't consider that "much" sugar, particularly, those 24-ish calories of sugar in each regular vegetable beet still don't seem like substantial hypocrisy on the part of someone who has said they've found that they now prefer things unsweetened, especially in a diet that explicitly contains fruit, and the rare hot cocoa.
That was the context in which I mentioned that regular vegetable beets are a different cultivar from sugar beets, with materially less sugar than sugar beets, which is true. The point was never that regular beets contain no sugar. Of course they do. They're also a very nutritious food, with a small bit of protein (incomplete, but 15% of calories! ), fiber, and some helpful micros.
None of which matters, either, in context of commenting on the poor factual basis for using someone's beet-eating to make fun of their comment about eating minimal sugar, on account of sugar being made from beets.
Beets are good. I like beets. They contain sugar. Meh.
I had to reread Poster A's post several times before I saw the fruit mention in the third paragraph. When he talks about "For all practical purposes I have in fact [eliminated sugar]" in the first paragraph it wasn't clear that he was referring solely to added sugar, and with that lack of clarity I feel Poster B's comment about beets was fair if she thought he was referring to all sugar.
Now that I see that fruit reference, I get where you have been coming from.
Because of this potential for confusion, I am careful to specify "added sugar", just like I will never say "processed foods" here on MFP when I mean "ultra processed foods" like the Brazilian definition.
Agreed: Clarity is a good thing to strive for, especially when it comes to terminology that's often misinterpreted. Careful reading, ditto.
The bigger deal, IMO, is that I feel that if I'm an advocate for a particular point of view (in this case, the point of view that balanced nutrition is really important, but sugar isn't Special Evil as a population-wide generality), then taunting those who disagree is a very ineffective tactic for persuading people who are on the fence, or just confused at the moment. In fact, it's likely to be counterproductive.
I get that it's sort of tempting, maybe even fun. Disagreement is a fine thing in posts, maybe even pointed disagreement, as appropriate. Taunting, and the piling-on effect of that, that happens on threads sometimes, in addition? Not effective. Not persuasive. Not informative.
But I'm getting dangerously meta.
Perceptions of taunting are often in the mind of the perceiver. I'm not going to back and read this whole thread, but as a general thing, I don't think it is taunting to point out that someone who is advocating eliminating sugar and claiming to have done so is, in fact, still consuming sugar and that intrinsic sugar and added sugar are not different. That's disagreeing, and explaining why you're disagreeing.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »I won't say I've eliminated sugar. For all practical purposes I have in fact done just that but I won't say it because of the irrational replies it invokes from people who act offended by the possibility.
For me, it came about gradually by phasing out categories of "foods" one at a time. Didn't switch to sweeteners. Just got used to, and eventually came to prefer foods unsweetened. I never swore an oath of sugar abstinence though. Last year I might have made a cup of hot cocoa three or four times. I might have three or four next year too. If pressed I could come up with more examples of very occasional use.
One of the last regular uses was adding brown sugar to the morning porridge but I weaned myself off that and now it's fine either naturally sweetened with fruit or savory. I've lost over 60 pounds so far and have another 40 or so to go to get to normal or healthy weight. When I get there, maybe I'll consider having an occasional dessert. But until then it's easier to skip them altogether than struggle with moderation. If moderating food came easy I wouldn't have become obese in the first place. To all the people who will have the irresistible compulsion to click disagree, I remind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do. And maybe I'll add that if the original poster decides to eliminate added sugars, that won't affect you either.
So you don't eat any fruits? Where do you get some of the key vitamins and minerals from then?
I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets.
FTR, sugar beets are a different cultivar from regular vegetable beets. Very different. Look more like a fat, stubby parsnip.
Both got that delicious sugar.
Sure. Lots in the one case (sugar beets), not much in the other (regular red beets).
Dog cookies and Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Milk Chocolate Macadamia Cookies are both "cookies", too, but I'd only eat the latter. Just not the same, not close.
Even if in the debate section, the beet thing . . . ?
According to https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169145/nutrients , about three-quarters of the calories in regular beets are from sugar. I wouldn't call that "not so much, even if it's less than in the beets grown for sugar.
Just to backtrack: A PP (in which the person said they eat fruit and occasionally hot cocoa), but had reduced sugar significantly while losing weight, now preferring most things unsweetened, to the point of eliminating sugar for all practical purposes. Given the fruit comment, it seemed (to me) pretty clear that this meant elimiating added sugar. Let's call this "Poster A", or PA for short.
A later poster (Poster B, or PB) said something along the lines that PA had posted in a different thread that s/he ate beets, and that sugar cane and beets are where refined sugar come from. This was, IMO, frankly kind of ridiculous way to taunt someone for posting what PA had written.
That's where I pointed out that those were different beets.
So, yes, around 3/4 of the whopping 35 calories in a 2" regular vegetable beet come from sugar. While I don't consider that "much" sugar, particularly, those 24-ish calories of sugar in each regular vegetable beet still don't seem like substantial hypocrisy on the part of someone who has said they've found that they now prefer things unsweetened, especially in a diet that explicitly contains fruit, and the rare hot cocoa.
That was the context in which I mentioned that regular vegetable beets are a different cultivar from sugar beets, with materially less sugar than sugar beets, which is true. The point was never that regular beets contain no sugar. Of course they do. They're also a very nutritious food, with a small bit of protein (incomplete, but 15% of calories! ), fiber, and some helpful micros.
None of which matters, either, in context of commenting on the poor factual basis for using someone's beet-eating to make fun of their comment about eating minimal sugar, on account of sugar being made from beets.
Beets are good. I like beets. They contain sugar. Meh.
I had to reread Poster A's post several times before I saw the fruit mention in the third paragraph. When he talks about "For all practical purposes I have in fact [eliminated sugar]" in the first paragraph it wasn't clear that he was referring solely to added sugar, and with that lack of clarity I feel Poster B's comment about beets was fair if she thought he was referring to all sugar.
Now that I see that fruit reference, I get where you have been coming from.
Because of this potential for confusion, I am careful to specify "added sugar", just like I will never say "processed foods" here on MFP when I mean "ultra processed foods" like the Brazilian definition.
Agreed: Clarity is a good thing to strive for, especially when it comes to terminology that's often misinterpreted. Careful reading, ditto.
The bigger deal, IMO, is that I feel that if I'm an advocate for a particular point of view (in this case, the point of view that balanced nutrition is really important, but sugar isn't Special Evil as a population-wide generality), then taunting those who disagree is a very ineffective tactic for persuading people who are on the fence, or just confused at the moment. In fact, it's likely to be counterproductive.
I get that it's sort of tempting, maybe even fun. Disagreement is a fine thing in posts, maybe even pointed disagreement, as appropriate. Taunting, and the piling-on effect of that, that happens on threads sometimes, in addition? Not effective. Not persuasive. Not informative.
But I'm getting dangerously meta.
Perceptions of taunting are often in the mind of the perceiver. I'm not going to back and read this whole thread, but as a general thing, I don't think it is taunting to point out that someone who is advocating eliminating sugar and claiming to have done so is, in fact, still consuming sugar and that intrinsic sugar and added sugar are not different. That's disagreeing, and explaining why you're disagreeing.
I agree with that - with both of the bolded.
The post that started the sub-thread started with 'I won't say I've eliminated sugar.", and the penultimate sentence includes "I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do." In between, mentions of drinking cocoa and including fruit. (Admittedly, overall tone sounds a little grumpy. ).
First reply, "So you don't eat any fruits?"
Second reply, "I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets."
If not taunting, I'll concede I'm over-reacting when I say that . . . but it's still not a great way to represent team "sugar is fine in moderation" on the rhetorical front, if the aim is to persuade other readers. Just my opinion, as always, of course.
It's all there if you click "show previous quotes", BTW, though it shows up poorly (hard to read) on a phone screen.1 -
My husband and I cut out added sugars last January as a part of Whole30 and after the 30 days, we decided to keep added sugars our of our diet moving forward. While we do make exceptions for special occasions/dining elsewhere, we adjusted all of our groceries to no-sugar-added products and don't cook with any added sugars at home. It's made a huge difference. We trimmed up, our skin looks amazing, and our energy levels are far more consistent throughout the day. The other benefit is that once you cut out added sugar and your tongue is no longer trained to expect the extreme flavor enhancement that sugar produces, natural foods begin to taste incredible. It can be overwhelming if you are someone who uses a lot of processed/pre-packaged foods, but if you are someone who likes to prepare foods and meals, the hardest part is adjusting your grocery list (takes about a month to research alternatives and get it down) and building up a variety recipes (google, google, google). Once you do that, cutting out added sugars is a piece of cake.1
-
I highly recommend a book called "Bright Line Eating". The author is a Phd scientist the book references many studies to the addictive effects of sugar and which support that sugar is addictive. I can also share that I was addicted in that sugar, a drug, was driving my behavior and I had lost the ability to control my food choices and quantities. I was 100 pounds overweight, I would overeat, I would hide my food, I had feelings of guilt, all of which are behaviors of an addict. There is scientific evidence in the form of brain CT scans which show the brain dopamine neurotransmitters respond to sugar the same way that you would cocaine and heroin. I quit eating sugar in February of 2019 and have lost 80 pounds and on my way to a healthy weight of 185. So to many of the comments here, unless you have science to back up your opinion you should refrain because you could be hurting someone who is seeking advice in earnest. SUGAR IS A DRUG and IT IS ADDICTIVE.1
-
I highly recommend a book called "Bright Line Eating". The author is a Phd scientist the book references many studies to the addictive effects of sugar and which support that sugar is addictive. I can also share that I was addicted in that sugar, a drug, was driving my behavior and I had lost the ability to control my food choices and quantities. I was 100 pounds overweight, I would overeat, I would hide my food, I had feelings of guilt, all of which are behaviors of an addict. There is scientific evidence in the form of brain CT scans which show the brain dopamine neurotransmitters respond to sugar the same way that you would cocaine and heroin. I quit eating sugar in February of 2019 and have lost 80 pounds and on my way to a healthy weight of 185. So to many of the comments here, unless you have science to back up your opinion you should refrain because you could be hurting someone who is seeking advice in earnest. SUGAR IS A DRUG and IT IS ADDICTIVE.
Re the bolded - the same thing happens when you do anything you like - petting a puppy, playing with your child, kissing your wife, etc. It is hardly conclusive evidence for an addiction or addictive behavior.2 -
Re the bolded - the same thing happens when you do anything you like - petting a puppy, playing with your child, kissing your wife, etc. It is hardly conclusive evidence for an addiction or addictive behavior.[/quote]
Sure, and if you engage in any activity enough like petting your puppy to where your brain becomes reliant upon the dopamine to feel normal such that you would find a way to engage that activity to the detriment of all consequence, then that is addiction. Which does not require physical substance such as gambling addicts, hoarders, all malady of the brain. I was overweight and having health consequence relating to obesity, and despite health issue like an addict i ignored all of that for my drive for food. So while you are correct, the point is that sugar has a tangible foot print and can be addictive. Of course, just because something is addictive does not mean everyone who does is addicted, not all people who drink are alcoholics, but if your behavior is driven by your need to get a substance or a hi such as your puppy pets, than that is addiction. I can speak to personal experience, I had no control over my food, until i quit eating processed sugar and foods that behave like sugar in the body, including corn, potato, flours, grains and only eating minimal fruit. Again, 80 pounds of weight loss since February 2019 and in control of eating because of treating sugar like an addiction which it is for me.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions