# Going without sugar



## eleuthera (Jan 20, 2014)

Is this something you have tried for an extended amount of time or would try? What were the results if you did?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

you mean sugar as an additive to sweeten stuff, or carbohydrates in general?


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

I am gradually revising my nutritional intake as part of my personal awareness plan. I have already cut added sugar from all my beverages. So far, the results have been inconclusive(after all, what SHOULD one feel?)


----------



## Snoopy (Jun 5, 2013)

Sugar/Sweets helped to neutralize acidic content...when all tasted bitter and sour.

I don't do that anymore however, because I recovered from that.


----------



## telepariah (Jun 20, 2011)

I consume very little sugar as sugar. But I use a little in cooking to counter the saltiness of soy sauce or fish sauce. I eat small amounts of very dark chocolate. And I drink alcohol in moderation. Other simple carbs I eat less of than I used to. I had a donut yesterday, first time in several years. I weigh the same as I did in high school at age 57. That wasn't always the case when I worked in a corporate career with lots of enabling types of people bringing sweets to the office and stress eating all day long. I weighed almost 40 pounds more five years ago but after I quit that job and got into a more active line of work, the weight dropped as I stopped eating all that crap.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

I use sweeteners instead of sugar now. Not that much better but added full fat sugar is so bad for you. I also don't drink coke or fizzy drinks and try not to use cordials.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

I keep trying and every time the result is an energy overload.


----------



## Emtropy (Feb 3, 2013)

What type of sugar? Cane sugar? Syrup? Or sugar from fruits?

I went low-carb a while ago. Do not recommend. No energy, freezing cold all the time, frequent binges. I prefer being a human radiator.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Sugar isn't actually that bad for you, you'd be better off cutting out things like saturated fat instead. The diabetes myths are all hogwash, sugar does not cause it, and unless you intake like the Cookie Monster himself, you've really got nothing to worry about.

Is sugar really that bad for you? - CNN.com


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

FreeBirdfood said:


> Sugar isn't actually that bad for you, you'd be better off cutting out things like saturated fat instead. The diabetes myths are all hogwash, sugar does not cause it, and unless you intake like the Cookie Monster himself, you've really got nothing to worry about.
> 
> Is sugar really that bad for you? - CNN.com


It's not a myth at all. My dad developed Diabetes through having a poor diet, mostly consisting of sweets and cola and now has the more dangerous type. Not a myth at all.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

sarek said:


> I am gradually revising my nutritional intake as part of my personal awareness plan. I have already cut added sugar from all my beverages. So far, the results have been inconclusive(after all, what SHOULD one feel?)


lighter


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> It's not a myth at all. My dad developed Diabetes through having a poor diet, mostly consisting of sweets and cola and now has the more dangerous type. Not a myth at all.


Diabetes is not caused by sugar, weight gain accelerates the degeneration of the pancreas in those predisposed to the disease by genetics, calories cause weight gain, sugar is a form of calories, but it is not the sugar itself that causes the pancreas to malfunction. For instance, in type 2 diabetes:

Nutrition Calculator | KFC.com

One "Famous Bowl" would do worse for a diabetic than two servings of the chocolate cake they offer.

Sugar is not to blame for speeding up the process of diabetes. Over-eating is.

Sugar and Desserts: American Diabetes Association®

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> It's not a myth at all. My dad developed Diabetes through having a poor diet, mostly consisting of sweets and cola and now has the more dangerous type. Not a myth at all.


sugar isnt bad, its the over consumption, due in part to hidden sugars in everyday foods, and one's individual pancreas' inability to function properly.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

FreeBirdfood said:


> Sugar is not to blame for speeding up the process of diabetes. Over-eating is.
> 
> Sugar and Desserts: American Diabetes Association®


_However, research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes._


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> _However, research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes._


If you had bothered to click on the link that was contained within that sentence you would have also noted that the reason for that being, as they explain, is because sugar contains calories, and high-sugar drinks contain lots of sugar calories. 

The point stands.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l don't know if l ever can.


lt's the insulin spikes and drops that cause type 2 diabetes over time, sugar seems like the easiest path to those altered insulin levels.

l've messed with my eating habits for an extended number of years and have always had very little control with sugar anyway, now when l try to go without it even if l attempt to eat nutritious food it's like all my systems fail.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

FreeBirdfood said:


> Diabetes is not caused by sugar, weight gain accelerates the degeneration of the pancreas in those predisposed to the disease by genetics, calories cause weight gain, sugar is a form of calories, but it is not the sugar itself that causes the pancreas to malfunction. For instance, in one predisposed to diabetes:
> 
> Nutrition Calculator | KFC.com
> 
> ...


You seem to be talking about type 1, this group has a different relationship with sugar since most were born with diabetes.

And yes, weight gain is a common contributor to type 2 but thin people with horrendous insulin self-regulation also develop it.


As far as overeating, one could alter insulin levels by overeating fatty foods that weren't sweet and gain weight but one could likely do the same thing by eating a ton of sweets, not gain a significant amount of weight and end up with the same insulin-regulation problem.

The second path seems more likely and probably includes fatty foods as well for people who develop it that way.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

FreeBirdfood said:


> Sugar isn't actually that bad for you, you'd be better off cutting out things like saturated fat instead. The diabetes myths are all hogwash, sugar does not cause it, and unless you intake like the Cookie Monster himself, you've really got nothing to worry about.
> 
> Is sugar really that bad for you? - CNN.com


Saturated fat is actually healthy for you, in the case of coconut oil or butter. Our fat-phobic society is increasingly unhealthy.
Sugar, as in natural sugar in fruit, honey, etc., is healthy, for energy. Processed white sugar is pretty much a drug, because it contains zero nutrients. We become hooked on it because of the energy spikes it gives us.
I don't consume much _processed_ sugar. I started cutting down by drinking black coffee, unsweetened tea, and dark chocolate, and now I find things cloyingly sweet sickening and without nuance. I find the more I cut out sugar, the better my sense of taste is. I actually start appreciating other flavors, and things that were once too bitter or sour for me aren't anymore.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> You seem to be talking about type 1.
> 
> And yes, weight gain is a common contributor to type 2 but thin people with horrendous insulin self-regulation also develop it, the genetic link is less significant.


Horrendous insulin is a symptom, not a cause. Read my links before you quote them.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

eleuthera said:


> Is this something you have tried for an extended amount of time or would try? What were the results if you did?


Yes, I started out eliminating soda from my diet and cutting down on sweets at thirteen. I guess it didn't do much, wasn't enough, or came too late because I'm a hypoglycemic anyways. I purposefully and progressively ate less and less sweets as I aged; I switched sweeteners (from refined white sugar to agave, stevia) sometime in my twenties (not sure how much that helped, it was mostly to help control my blood sugar). I became a vegan at 29 and that resulted in the biggest reduction in sugar consumption of my life because I couldn't know which sugar was vegan and which was not. In the past few years, I've had little more than a few energy bars (made with evaporated cane juice) per month. As of a few days ago, I've permanently removed refined sugar from my diet completely.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

candiemerald said:


> Saturated fat is actually healthy for you, in the case of coconut oil or butter. Our fat-phobic society is increasingly unhealthy.
> Sugar, as in natural sugar in fruit, honey, etc., is healthy, for energy. Processed white sugar is pretty much a drug, because it contains zero nutrients. We become hooked on it because of the energy spikes it gives us.
> I don't consume much _processed_ sugar. I started cutting down by drinking black coffee, unsweetened tea, and dark chocolate, and now I find things cloyingly sweet sickening and without nuance. I find the more I cut out sugar, the better my sense of taste is. I actually start appreciating other flavors, and things that were once too bitter or sour for me aren't anymore.


Sugar itself does not cause those energy spikes, and the myth that it'll make your kids hyper is false as well. It has to do with carbohydrates, which are prominent in sugars, but there aren't always enough. You are generally correct with this statement, however it does not apply to all sugar intake, it depends a lot on what else is actually eaten with the sugar.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

FreeBirdfood said:


> Horrendous insulin is a symptom, not a cause. Read my links before you quote them.


There's information about both there, you can talk about ''both'' but they're very different illnesses. 

Here l am at 106ish pounds feeling like l'm on my way to developing it someday from the way l've treated my body, never been overweight a day in my life and people can't refrain from blaming it on morbidly obese people and KFC.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> You linked to non specific info about your statement, not clarifying if you were talking about Type 1 or Type 2 with information about both being contained on that page.


I was speaking for both of them, I noted that genetics AND weight gain are both primary causes of diabetes, both type 1 and type 2 were included in my second post. I have made a small edit for clarification on this.

I did get a bit mixed up in my thoughts, you had reason to be confused.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> There's information about both there, you can talk about ''both'' but they're very different illnesses.
> 
> Here l am at 106ish pounds feeling like l'm on my way to developing it someday from the way l've treated my body, never been overweight a day in my life and people can't refrain from blaming it on morbidly obese people and KFC.


It has to do with calorie intake, whether too much or too little, either way type 2 is made worse by irregular calorie/carbohydrate consumption.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

FreeBirdfood said:


> If you had bothered to click on the link that was contained within that sentence you would have also noted that the reason for that being, as they explain, is because sugar contains calories, and high-sugar drinks contain lots of sugar calories.
> 
> The point stands.


The link doesn't refer to the study mentioned in the quote, just explains what a sugary drink is.

Perhaps they refer to this study http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257108.php


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

FreeBirdfood said:


> Sugar itself does not cause those energy spikes, and the myth that it'll make your kids hyper is false as well. It has to do with carbohydrates, which are prominent in sugars, but there aren't always enough. You are generally correct with this statement, however it does not apply to all sugar intake, it depends a lot on what else is actually eaten with the sugar.


Perhaps "energy spikes" was the wrong definition. But sugar is just another drug, because of how refined it is. It is completely stripped of nutrients (drugs don't start out being a health hazard in most cases; it is the excessive refining process that creates the problems).

Sugar Addiction: The Legal Heroin? 3 Ways Sugar and Heroin Are Similar : Fitness Arts | Biotics Research Corporation and Premier Research Labs (PR Labs) Products & Supplements, and Pilates, Muscle Testing, Nutrition, Anti-Aging, Laser Treatments, Fat

Sugar Is a "Drug" and Here


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> The link doesn't refer to the study mentioned in the quote, just explains what a sugary drink is.
> 
> Perhaps they refer to this study High Sugar Consumption Linked To Type 2 Diabetes - Medical News Today


While it is a compelling read, no. Click the "sugary drinks" highlighted link and you get this:

What Can I Drink?: American Diabetes Association®

You're right, it does explain what sugary drinks are, and how they are full of calories and carbohydrates. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

The evidence provided in that study is compelling, but not definitive. They are saying that because sugars are more available, the rate of diabetes in the public increases, however they fail to state how this works. 

"This was after taking into account risk factors such as obesity and physical activity. A 150-calorie increase from any type of food only caused a 0.1 increase in the rate. "

While that is nice, they do not provide a source, which makes me skeptical, "any type of food" is extremely overgeneralized. I cannot understand how they can solidly say that sugars are the cause of the 1% hike in diabetes rates, without providing information other than "Well, sugar is more available there." If the study was not directed at the impact of sugar on the human body, how can they pinpoint this from such a general study? Logic would say that more sugar availability = more calories/carbs to consume until you are "full", and thus, a higher diabetes rate. 

It's impossible to say a compound in sugar is what sets off diabetes without first identifying the compound if it even exists. The study is biased.

If you look at the author's Twitter, you'll find he reports on just about everything, he doesn't have an area of specialization and his primary interest is money from freelance reporting. Writing an interpretation of a scientific study does not make him a qualified scientist to be able to criticize on matters like this, let alone give him the ability to assert a point from facts that are simply not there. I read through the actual report after I found it in PLOS ONE, the report does not suggest that sugar has a significant impact, and there isn't enough data to make it definitive for what little data there is on it, even though the author and the scientist who published his studies seem to think they signify a major cause-effect, they do not.

The author just wanted his money so he published something controversial that didn't hold any weight, but got people to look so he still gets paid.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

candiemerald said:


> Perhaps "energy spikes" was the wrong definition. But sugar is just another drug, because of how refined it is. It is completely stripped of nutrients (drugs don't start out being a health hazard in most cases; it is the excessive refining process that creates the problems).
> 
> Sugar Addiction: The Legal Heroin? 3 Ways Sugar and Heroin Are Similar : Fitness Arts | Biotics Research Corporation and Premier Research Labs (PR Labs) Products & Supplements, and Pilates, Muscle Testing, Nutrition, Anti-Aging, Laser Treatments, Fat
> 
> Sugar Is a "Drug" and Here


I agree with you on the drug bit, but not on the classifications, the effects it has on the brain interacting with other chemicals is what would classify it as a drug, enhancing opioides and dopamine effects. Which of course could lead to addiction if it gets out of hand, but we're talking serious sweet-toothers here, the standard person would not get addicted to sugar nearly as quickly or as seriously as more mainstream drugs, so while the statistics are there to prove that it is in fact an addictive substance, I can't necessarily agree with the panic level of people over it as one. Because it's really not that bad unless you have zero self-control. 

I'm not really one to talk being a smoker, but I know what addiction is, what it feels like at the start, and it's not what sugar does to most people. I could live without it after having it in my life for so long, cigarettes are another story.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

FreeBirdfood said:


> I agree with you on the drug bit, but not on the classifications, the effects it has on the brain interacting with other chemicals is what would classify it as a drug, enhancing opioides and dopamine effects. Which of course could lead to addiction if it gets out of hand, but we're talking serious sweet-toothers here, the standard person would not get addicted to sugar nearly as quickly or as seriously as more mainstream drugs, so while the statistics are there to prove that it is in fact an addictive substance, I can't necessarily agree with the panic level of people over it as one. Because it's really not that bad unless you have zero self-control.
> 
> I'm not really one to talk being a smoker, but I know what addiction is, what it feels like at the start, and it's not what sugar does to most people. I could live without it after having it in my life for so long, cigarettes are another story.


Yes, I agree with you, especially that we shouldn't panic about the evidence that sugar is unhealthy. That usually just leads to people swapping sugar for artificial sweeteners and thinking they are fine, when actually the artificial sweeteners are probably worse for them. Also, studies on what we should and should not eat are often misinterpreted or misconstrued, or end up being disproven anyway (*cough* Cholesterol and eggs are "bad": Eggs: Healthy or Not? | John Berardi, Ph.D.. Saturated fat is "bad": Everyone Was Wrong: Saturated Fat Is Good For You | Greatist). 
I usually take new medical findings about what is good or bad for us with a grain of salt.


----------



## eleuthera (Jan 20, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> you mean sugar as an additive to sweeten stuff, or carbohydrates in general?


 As an ingredient in a product or added to something, not naturally like carbohydrates or dates.


----------



## eleuthera (Jan 20, 2014)

Wow a lot more activity in this thread than expected.



sarek said:


> I am gradually revising my nutritional intake as part of my personal awareness plan. I have already cut added sugar from all my beverages. So far, the results have been inconclusive(after all, what SHOULD one feel?)


 Great Sarek. Yes, I thought the same a couple of years ago when I did it for lent 40+ days and thought it was quite crazy but then later I realized I hadn't one sickness during that time. For me specifically it has helped since I have an autoimmune disease and has been greatly helping me taper off steroids. I seem to get sick easily when I don't control it. Seeing the movie Hungry for Change and a wheelbarrel of sugar dumped on a stage for a years worth of school milk motivated me also.



candiemerald said:


> ......
> Sugar, as in natural sugar in fruit, honey, etc., is healthy, for energy. Processed white sugar is pretty much a drug, because it contains zero nutrients. We become hooked on it because of the energy spikes it gives us.
> I don't consume much _processed_ sugar. I started cutting down by drinking black coffee, unsweetened tea, and dark chocolate, and now I find things cloyingly sweet sickening and without nuance. I find the more I cut out sugar, the better my sense of taste is. I actually start appreciating other flavors, and things that were once too bitter or sour for me aren't anymore.


 I agree candie on the natural sugars and try to integrate that into my diet, its taken 4 years to replace a lot of the chocolate I used to eat daily with different taste buds. I do have cocoa nibs and cocoa to add in stuff, so its not like the replacements are too bad. I started the black coffee in 2009 when I saw a 40ish year old told they had to cut out sugar, I figured I never want to be that guy and still have the choice for a piece of cake when I'm 80years old.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

eleuthera said:


> I agree candie on the natural sugars and try to integrate that into my diet, its taken 4 years to replace a lot of the chocolate I used to eat daily with different taste buds. I do have cocoa nibs and cocoa to add in stuff, so its not like the replacements are too bad. I started the black coffee in 2009 when I saw a 40ish year old told they had to cut out sugar, I figured I never want to be that guy and still have the choice for a piece of cake when I'm 80years old.


Yes, it does take awhile to adjust. I have a lot of digestive issues, so that's a great motivation to try and eat better...yay :frustrating: It's forced me to do a lot of research on alternative ways of eating/alternative medicine. 
Besides, I like to cut unnecessary things out of my life sometimes and get a different perspective. It makes one appreciate having things more.


----------



## eleuthera (Jan 20, 2014)

candiemerald said:


> Yes, it does take awhile to adjust. I have a lot of digestive issues, so that's a great motivation to try and eat better...yay :frustrating: It's forced me to do a lot of research on alternative ways of eating/alternative medicine.
> Besides, I like to cut unnecessary things out of my life sometimes and get a different perspective. It makes one appreciate having things more.


I can agree with more natural sugars, I really feel like I'm getting something more when I eat whole foods and take the time to read the ingredients. Sometimes you come across some other things that make you wonder, should I really be consuming this? Food is supposed to be life sustaining but I also think the pleasure factor is a big thing. But we can always adapt that over time. Looking at countries that don't have a high economy its interesting how so many cancers and disease or more removed. Or even that they might have better teeth without a toothbrush.

One friend told me that the first time she ate mcdonalds in the 60s (this was Japan) she thought it tasted like dog food. Over time she didn't notice the taste anymore.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

eleuthera said:


> I can agree with more natural sugars, I really feel like I'm getting something more when I eat whole foods and take the time to read the ingredients. Sometimes you come across some other things that make you wonder, should I really be consuming this? Food is supposed to be life sustaining but I also think the pleasure factor is a big thing. But we can always adapt that over time. Looking at countries that don't have a high economy its interesting how so many cancers and disease or more removed. Or even that they might have better teeth without a toothbrush.
> 
> One friend told me that the first time she ate mcdonalds in the 60s (this was Japan) she thought it tasted like dog food. Over time she didn't notice the taste anymore.


Yes. Sadly, our SAD diet is an abnormal, acquired taste. I make a point to read all packaged foods now, and the massive ingredient lists typical of processed foods scares me...I can't even pronounce most of the words. Once I started actually listening to my body, I realized processed foods make me feel sluggish, bloated, and depressed. When I eat wholesome, natural foods, with a small ingredient list (or just one ingredient!) I notice I feel good. I've actually lost my taste for most processed and fast foods. I realize their flavor lacks a lot of nuance, they don't have good texture, and they give me stomachache.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Forget sugar, go without corn syrup, that's where the real victory comes from. Stupid FDA...corporate welfare.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

My diet regularly consists high dosages of sodium and sugars. Going without sugar is like asking me to become a tree... do I look like I want to become a tree?

That being said, I'm assuming the OP means sweet things. So no. I have a very intense sweet tooth and the cavity fillings to prove it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

FreeBirdfood said:


> While it is a compelling read, no. Click the "sugary drinks" highlighted link and you get this:
> 
> What Can I Drink?: American Diabetes Association®
> 
> ...


Are you trolling me or smth? You posted a link and claimed it said that sugar is not the cause, then I pointed out to you that in the same link they mention studies that show a connection, then you tell me to see the link and I do and the link only explains what a sugary drink is, it does not refer to the study (they would link to word study if that were the case) and I'm arguing just for the sake of it?

As for the study, it's a new study that shows possible connection that wasn't previously found. That's how things work, you first find evidence that a link might exist and then you proceed to research it further to find the way it works. 


From the study:



> We used United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization
> food supply data [26] to capture market availability of different
> food items (sugars, fibers, fruits, meats, cereals, oils, and total food)
> in kilocalories per person per day in each country for each year of
> ...


I don't care about the article in Medical News, nor the author, just the study itself (it was linked at the end of the article).


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Are you trolling me or smth? You posted a link and claimed it said that sugar is not the cause, then I pointed out to you that in the same link they mention studies that show a connection, then you tell me to see the link and I do and the link only explains what a sugary drink is, it does not refer to the study (they would link to word study if that were the case) and I'm arguing just for the sake of it?
> 
> As for the study, it's a new study that shows possible connection that wasn't previously found. That's how things work, you first find evidence that a link might exist and then you proceed to research it further to find the way it works.
> 
> ...


You failed to actually look at the data files the researcher provided. It's inconclusive, potentially showing a trend, but there is too many outside factors not provided for that make it impossible to say for sure.

This is a quote from what I've been trying to get you to read and understand. 

"One 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!"

It's calories and carbohydrates, NOT sugar that you need to watch out for. Calories and carbs are prominent in sugar, and they are the cause, sugar is composed of the two things that accelerate type 2 diabetes, but it is NOT the sugar alone to blame. It has been suggested that it can potentially be accelerated by other components of sugar, but it has not been PROVEN beyond a doubt.

Try to think a little less linear about this.

A study showed that there was a correlation between the amount of ice cream purchased, and the frequency of rape occurrences. Therefor ice cream causes rape.

No, it's not the ice cream, it's the fact that it's summer, people buy more ice-cream in summer, are walking around in more scantily clad clothing, there are more people present on the streets during the summer, as well as more people partying, than in the winter, there's too many outside factors to conclusively say ice cream is in fact the cause of rape.

Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you?

Additionally, the "scientist" that did that test did not factor in carbohydrates at all, which I remind you, are extremely prominent in sugar, but he only cared about calories, he completely excluded something that HAS been proven to contribute to type 2 diabetes, further skewing the results.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

FreeBirdfood said:


> You failed to actually look at the data files the researcher provided. It's inconclusive, potentially showing a trend, but there is too many outside factors not provided for that make it impossible to say for sure.
> 
> This is a quote from what I've been trying to get you to read and understand.
> 
> ...


I'd like you to elaborate on the difference between carbohydates and sugar and how carbs contribute but sugar doesn't. And what other components of sugar are you referring to?

As for the study, it's a start, it doesn't have to be conclusive, most studies usually aren't 100% conclusive anyway, that's why they work on percentages and ratios etc.


----------



## FreeBirdfood (Feb 13, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> I'd like you to elaborate on the difference between carbohydates and sugar and how carbs contribute but sugar doesn't. And what other components of sugar are you referring to?
> 
> As for the study, it's a start, it doesn't have to be conclusive, most studies usually aren't 100% conclusive anyway, that's why they work on percentages and ratios etc.


Calories and carbs are what is contained within what we know as "sugar" but it is not the sugar itself that causes it, it's calories and carbohydrates, which you find in many other foods that do not have sugars in them.

For example, a cup of wheat yields 651 calories and 137 carbohydrates, but does not contain a significant enough amount of "sugar" to even be listed. Wheat would also contribute to obesity and thus diabetes.

Sugar is linked to obesity, which is why it is linked to diabetes, but it is not the primary cause. The primary cause is, again, calories and carbohydrates. When you incorporate a large amount of sugar in your diet, you will get fat, because sugar is usually linked to high-calorie/carb foods. Fat = Diabetes.

Read this section of Wikipedia and I think it may help to clear things up:

Glycemic index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have to be conclusive in a study, there is only right or wrong until proven right. It has not been proven right. They are trying to say that sugar is the primary cause of diabetes, even though all sugar is is really just calories and carbs, so it makes sense, however, it's not the case, because it has nothing to do with eating "too much" sugar, it has to do with eating "too many" calories and carbohydrates. You just confuse people into thinking sugar = straight to the veins when you start to overgeneralize, it has to be classified correctly to fully understand how to effectively prevent diabetes. Cutting out sugar and replacing it with wheat to be "healthier" is still good for you, but it's not as good as people have been led to believe.

For example:

1 cup of granulated white sugar contains:
773 calories (38% of a 2000 calorie diet)
200g carbohydrate (66%)

1 cup of wheat contains:
651 calories (32%)
137g carbohydrate (45%)

Seeing some similarities here?

Yes, it is pretty bad for people developing diabetes, but you have to understand why in order to fully protect yourself against it. Otherwise you'll just overeat on products like wheat, still get fat, and still accelerate type 2 diabetes.

The Atkins diet is a good example of the effects of calories and carbohydrates on weight gain. It works by starving the body of the carbohydrates necessary to produce weight gain, and it is a recommended diet for those with diabetes, but you still have to regulate it, because it can make you anorexic very quickly. After your body enters "ketosis" it starts a chemical process to begin burning the fat in your body for energy rather than relying on food, because it "knows" that it will not be receiving the carbs necessary to continue using just food to run efficiently, so it relies on backup storage as well, kind of like kicking on a generator when the lights get dim.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## p55carroll (Oct 9, 2012)

No, I hadn't heard of "carb cycling," but it sounds interesting. Thanks! I'll look it up.


----------



## Zster (Mar 7, 2011)

I have greatly reduced sugar, largely by cutting a huge chunk of complex carbs at dinner time (skip the potatoes, bread, pasta) and by making my own drinks from scratch (juices, soda stream). Small amounts of table sugar wont kill me, and the rest come from whole fruits and veggies. I feel more energetic since making the change.

The reduction also seems to have reset the thresh hold for what tastes sweet to me now. What used to seem like an only moderately sweet coffee drink now tastes like maple syrup to me. I can not stand to drink it. Also, "100% no sugar added" fruit juice from the store chokes me with over sweetness (guessing concentrates or other "natural sweeteners" that the gov does not require on the label). So, now I find I prefer my healthier home made options. A win!

note: in making my own sodas, initially, by using table sugar JUST to barely sweet enough taste, I reduced the amt of sugar per cup by 75-80%. Not unsweetened. No diet after taste. Flavorful, but a lot less unhealthy.


----------



## SalvinaZerelda (Aug 26, 2010)

It's so impractical to avoid a lot of sugar in your diet.
Even fruit, something supposedly healthy, has a lot of sugar.

I think the best results I've had with avoiding sugar was when sugar was a reward most of the time, and was rationed out to me by my father.
but now that I'm an adult I need self-discipline. :sulkiness:

I think it's about your state of mind, though.
Maybe a person enjoys sweets a great deal, but they don't have to think about them all the time.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Sugar is literally the easiest component to avoid imo.. There are 0cal replacements available which are just as good in every situation, so why is there even a need for sugar?


----------



## p55carroll (Oct 9, 2012)

Tridentus said:


> Sugar is literally the easiest component to avoid imo.. There are 0cal replacements available which are just as good in every situation, so why is there even a need for sugar?


Most health-conscious people I know say that sugar substitutes are far worse for the body than sugar itself. Many products targeted to health-conscious people nowadays are marked "Contains Real Sugar." Even though white sugar has long been considered bad, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, and other substances are considered worse.

There are "natural" sweeteners like stevia, but the taste takes some getting used to.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

p55carroll said:


> Most health-conscious people I know say that sugar substitutes are far worse for the body than sugar itself. Many products targeted to health-conscious people nowadays are marked "Contains Real Sugar." Even though white sugar has long been considered bad, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, and other substances are considered worse.
> 
> There are "natural" sweeteners like stevia, but the taste takes some getting used to.


I have a new rule, because every health "rule" that does not have any clear explanations for itself have been either unclear or straight up LIES as far as my experience goes.

Please explain to me specifically HOW sweeteners are bad for you, and I will accept it based on scientific reasoning.


----------



## p55carroll (Oct 9, 2012)

Tridentus said:


> Please explain to me specifically HOW sweeteners are bad for you, and I will accept it based on scientific reasoning.


I'm no scientist. You'll have to do your own research. Here's an article that just turned up for me in a Google search; you can easily find others:
Artificial sweeteners: sugar-free, but at what cost? - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications

Personally I get bored and impatient with such research, so I rely quite a bit on anecdotal evidence and tips from friends. Some of my friends enjoy the research, and that ends up helping me.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

p55carroll said:


> I'm no scientist. You'll have to do your own research. Here's an article that just turned up for me in a Google search; you can easily find others:
> Artificial sweeteners: sugar-free, but at what cost? - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications
> 
> Personally I get bored and impatient with such research, so I rely quite a bit on anecdotal evidence and tips from friends. Some of my friends enjoy the research, and that ends up helping me.


Yeah, this was my whole problem with that premise- it's based on ulterior risks which are still slighter than original sugar's risks'.

Ok, it's cancer (still not very likely) instead of diabetes, etc. But the main risk of weight gain (leading to dozens of different diseases down the line) is categorically still there, and so on balance there is no question which type of sugar is better.


----------



## p55carroll (Oct 9, 2012)

IMO (based on a little reading and a lot of intuition), the problem is not the nature of sugar; it's that the average person consumes way, way, way too much of it--in any form. That includes starchy carbs like potatoes and grains. The body grows used to that carb overload and compensates for it. Obesity is usually a symptom of that, but I understand there are other negative effects too.

The best thing I think I ever did for my health was go on a paleo diet for two or three years. Maybe not for everybody, but it worked like a charm for me. The only sugar I got was from whole fruit (sometimes including dried fruit in moderate amounts). I got down to my ideal body weight and felt better than I ever had. Of course I combined the diet with a good exercise routine.

For me, it's not worth quibbling over what kind of sugar is best. The main thing is just to cut way back on sugar and carbs, period. Not saying it's what other people need to do, but it's what works for me.


----------



## debonair (Jul 24, 2015)

I actually feel a lot better when cutting carbs out of my diet. At first I was worried I would be completely drained, seeing as carbs normally is what provides you with energy during the day.

That post-breakfast crash where you for no apparent reason just shut down, or the food coma after a big meal - all completely gone.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

eleuthera said:


> Is this something you have tried for an extended amount of time or would try? What were the results if you did?


This isn't as difficult as it sounds. The important thing is to know what to expect. Also you don't have to go completely without sugar, reducing it is already a good thing. But you have to know what to expect.

Suppose you´re used to put 4 scoops of sugar in your coffee or tea. Reducing it to just 1 scoop of sugar makes the coffee or tea taste less good than you´re used to and you'll be like: "I'm not going to suffer the rest of my life with this awfull taste."

If you know what to expect, this "awfull" taste isn't a problem. Our brains have the interesting property that they judge everything relative to other things. Absolute values are almost irrelevant. For example, the same music played one octave higher sounds just fine as well. The absolute values of the frequencies are irrelevant. As long as all the tones played are good relative to eachother, we recognize the music just the same and it sounds fine as well. This property of our brains to judge things relative to some kind of reference frame is what helps dealing with less sugar as well.

The reference frame of how much sugar is ideal gets updated constantly. It does take a while, but when you´re reducing sugar in your coffee, your brain first detects a problem, but at the same time it updates its reference frame of how much sugar it's used to. It takes about 3 weeks for this "sugar reference frame" to be updated to 1 scoop of sugar in your coffee.

So after about 3 weeks, 1 scoop of sugar is your new ideal amount of sugar. If you put 4 scoops again, your face will frown because you'll dislike this huge amount of 4 scoops of sugar.

Just knowing what to expect is all you need to addapt your preferences. Once you know this, and gave it a try and through experience find out that this is actually how our brains work, the next step becomes a lot more easy.


----------



## p55carroll (Oct 9, 2012)

Peter said:


> So after about 3 weeks, 1 scoop of sugar is your new ideal amount of sugar. If you put 4 scoops again, your face will frown because you'll dislike this huge amount of 4 scoops of sugar.


That's true. You do get used to the change.

I'd just like to add that cutting back on sugar is not simply a matter of using fewer spoonfuls of table sugar. That's only a small part of it. If you eat copious amounts of starchy carbs (bread, potatoes, cereals, etc.), they're turning into glucose and ultimately having the same effect on you as spoonfuls of white sugar (or brown sugar or whatever).

So, if you want to reduce sugar for health reasons, it's necessary to cut back on bread, potatoes, cereals, and grains as well (unless you're the odd person who doesn't consume much of that kind of food in the first place).

For me, that was the hard part. I didn't mind doing without sweets. I complained, but I got over it. No big deal. And my taste buds adjusted, so that black coffee tastes fine to me and candy is sickeningly sweet. It was much harder to get used to eating mainly green vegetables, fresh fruit, meat, and raw nuts and seeds (in small quantities)--and nothing else. In the first half of my life, I built all my meals around starchy carbs; I considered that my main food source. Now I'm amazed that I could ever have thought that. Apparently I wasn't thinking at all.


----------

