Reasons You Should Eat Sugar

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Fructophobes are the New Puritans. They are people who are beset by the twin fears that:

(A) someone somewhere is enjoying their food and is

(B) leaner, fitter and healthier than they are while doing it.

Yes they are. I just joined a new health club, which has extensive nutritional courses etc...as part of their training program. Sat through one on carbs & the glycemic index just the other day. And while their info was all research based, they certainly left no room for people to even enjoy themselves or enjoy some sugar by the way the condemned it, which is a shame because that is a surefire way to get people to either

1) not change

2) fail, because they can't just cut out everything

[Dreamliner]

There is a term for people who grit their teeth and eliminate entire food-groups:

Fat People

[Dreamliner]

Here's another: new study shows women who enjoy sweets occasionally live longer than women who abstain from sugar.

[gatorpower]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

(4) Have you ever noticed that overweight people are typically people who have bounced from one deprivation-based diet to another ?

Dude, I notice that people who are overweight are people who eat a lot. I have watched this before. I have studied the phenomenon. They eat a lot. I have noticed nothing else, except maybe that they also wear baggy clothes. The only thing I've seen bouncing are their fat rolls.

: hairy:

[Dreamliner]

I saw what you did with all those emoticons.

[LeafUF]

Not sure if it was the same study but I read one that basically said those who eat sweets were thinner than those who don't. But I think thin people are just more likely to admit it. Of the people I work with and travel with I am one of the thinner ones and I eat candy like it's my job on the road. While the heavier or more self conscious team members will eat really healthy the whole time we are together. This leads me to believe that they are masking their bad habits and one of my coworkers pretty much told me just that.

[Dreamliner]

Still boils down to calories. I don't even know anymore what people mean by 'eating healthy.'

[LeafUF]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Still boils down to calories. I don't even know anymore what people mean by 'eating healthy.'

Dont need to tell me that. And you are just playing dumb if you don't know what people mean by eating healthy. At least what creates the perception of a healthy diet.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by LeafUF

Dont need to tell me that. And you are just playing dumb if you don't know what people mean by eating healthy. At least what creates the perception of a healthy diet.

apparently my work is not done here. 'Healthy diet' lacks explanatory power. You're just going to have spell out what it means. You can eat whole grain and veggies in abundance, and if you exceed calorie balance, you'll get fat and your health markers will diminish.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Still boils down to calories. I don't even know anymore what people mean by 'eating healthy.'

I think there's some merit in the notion, though.

Eating an entire day's worth of calories in cotton candy is certainly less conducive to "overall health" than something more "balanced." Beyond the fact that you'd fairly quickly develop rickets and scurvy, I don't think it would promote a very pleasing body composition.

Obviously that's different than someone saying "oh, I can't eat this pie, it's not 'healthy'" and then consuming the same # of calories in salad and grilled chicken. But to an extent, there is healthy and unhealthy eating, at least at a threshold of quantity.

None of this is very sugar specific, of course, but the primary issue with sugar is not its nutritional makeup or that it's "evil" or a fat-promoter, but that simple sugars have very little influence on satiety. Which means, if you're the kind of person who can eat a small bowl of ice cream and be happy, no harm no foul. But a lot of people simply aren't like that. There's a pleasure response to eating sugary foods that keeps them going back, and with less natural barrier to overeating, it can be a very bad idea to even start.

Nothing in the above applies to fruit, of course, which is loaded with soluble and insoluble fiber to promote satiety. The demonization of fruit in the fitness industry is a huge headslapper.

So the question "is sugar good or bad" will always be met with the answer "neither." The follow-up question "should I eat sugar if I'm trying to lose weight" is not so simple. If you can be honest and say you're the 1 bowl of ice cream person, go for it. But otherwise, it might be prudent to find ways to limit.

"Everything in moderation" is the greatest advice ever given, but depending on the person it may need to be modified to "Everything in moderation, unless you can't handle moderation, in which case get rid of it."

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I think there's some merit in the notion, though.

Eating an entire day's worth of calories in cotton candy is certainly less conducive to "overall health" than something more "balanced." Beyond the fact that you'd fairly quickly develop rickets and scurvy, I don't think it would promote a very pleasing body composition.

Obviously that's different than someone saying "oh, I can't eat this pie, it's not 'healthy'" and then consuming the same # of calories in salad and grilled chicken. But to an extent, there is healthy and unhealthy eating, at least at a threshold of quantity.

None of this is very sugar specific, of course, but the primary issue with sugar is not its nutritional makeup or that it's "evil" or a fat-promoter, but that simple sugars have very little influence on satiety. Which means, if you're the kind of person who can eat a small bowl of ice cream and be happy, no harm no foul. But a lot of people simply aren't like that. There's a pleasure response to eating sugary foods that keeps them going back, and with less natural barrier to overeating, it can be a very bad idea to even start.

Nothing in the above applies to fruit, of course, which is loaded with soluble and insoluble fiber to promote satiety. The demonization of fruit in the fitness industry is a huge headslapper.

So the question "is sugar good or bad" will always be met with the answer "neither." The follow-up question "should I eat sugar if I'm trying to lose weight" is not so simple. If you can be honest and say you're the 1 bowl of ice cream person, go for it. But otherwise, it might be prudent to find ways to limit.

"Everything in moderation" is the greatest advice ever given, but depending on the person it may need to be modified to "Everything in moderation, unless you can't handle moderation, in which case get rid of it."

I don't envision anyone being able to sustain an all-cotton candy diet for more than a day. On the other hand, University of Kansas nutrition professor Gary Haub lost 27 lbs. in 10 weeks on a Twinkie diet. Roughly 80% of his calories came from Twinkies and other sugary treats. He only added a protein shake and a can of green beans.

His health markers improved SUBSTANTIALLY across the board. So, how was his diet 'unhealthy' ?

Now, I readily grant that some foods contain more essential nutrients than others. I readily grant that some foods afford better satiety than others. And for my trainees who need to go quite low in calories, I urge them to emphasize bang-for-the-buck foods and the others in moderation.

But in my view, the thing that is most 'unhealthy' about the American diet is that it contains too many calories.

Lastly, on the subject of encouraging people to 'get rid of', say, sugar. I am reluctant to do that. Now, if they volunteer to abstain from sugar, I do not stand in their way. However, people who abstain from sugar generally report that it takes months if not years for sugar cravings to abate. And some report that they never go away. For these and the reasons already stated, I believe that moderation, not abstinence, is the better course, even for the person who needs to go extremely low in calories.

[malscott]

I cut dairy and sugar from my diet and lost 10 lbs almost immediately. As much as sugar is yummy to many, cancer loves sugar way more than us. Cancer thrives on the stuff. High oxygen content and low sugar are cancers enemies. FWIW

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by malscott

I cut dairy and sugar from my diet and lost 10 lbs almost immediately. As much as sugar is yummy to many, cancer loves sugar way more than us. Cancer thrives on the stuff. High oxygen content and low sugar are cancers enemies. FWIW

Happy for you. You lost your ten pounds because eliminating dairy and sugar created a calorie deficit. But there is nothing insidious about sugar such that a donut here and there becomes a breeding ground for cancer. Look to obesity for links with diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I don't envision anyone being able to sustain an all-cotton candy diet for more than a day. On the other hand, University of Kansas nutrition professor Gary Haub lost 27 lbs. in 10 weeks on a Twinkie diet. Roughly 100% of his calories came from Twinkies and other sugary treats. He only added a protein shake and a can of green beans.

His health markers improved SUBSTANTIALLY across the board. So, how was his diet 'unhealthy' ?

10 weeks is obviously a very short time period to judge such things.

But in my view, the thing that is most 'unhealthy' about the American diet is that it contains too many calories.

Agreed, and sadly, simple sugars contribute to that for a lot of people, largely because of the satiety factor.

I believe that moderation, not abstinence, is the better course, even for the person who needs to go extremely low in calories.

As I said, moderation is great ... for people who can moderate.

[Sir_Gibby]

Paleo

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Also, I'm sure you're aware of this, but Haub was not in fact on an all-Twinkie diet.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

10 weeks is obviously a very short time period to judge such things.



Agreed, and sadly, simple sugars contribute to that for a lot of people, largely because of the satiety factor.



As I said, moderation is great ... for people who can moderate.

As to the 10 weeks, the predictable chorus was dead wrong as it would have predicted atherogenic changes in health markers simply because sugar was made the mainstay of the diet, even though hypo-caloric.

Agree on the last bit, although I have not met the first person who has not been able to moderate.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Also, I'm sure you're aware of this, but Haub was not in fact on an all-Twinkie diet.

I didn't say he was.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

As to the 10 weeks, the predictable chorus was dead wrong as it would have predicted atherogenic changes in health markers simply because sugar was made the mainstay of the diet, even though hypo-caloric.

My contention isn't that LDL would go down and HDL would go up (or vice versa), it's that there are a host of other metabolic functions that would be impaired long-term without ample protein and quality fats.

Sugar is for short term energy ... that's its role.

Agree on the last bit, although I have not met the first person who has not been able to moderate.

Degree or will power, or call it what you will.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I didn't say he was.

I don't think you meant, to, but yes you did:

Roughly 100% of his calories came from Twinkies