Eliminating Sugar From Your Diet

[lukewarm]

WhiteLinen- yes I agree, everyone needs carbs. I guess what I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who scarf too many carbs for their lifestyle. Coming from an Italian background, my family eats carbs morning, noon, and night. It is simply overload considering many of them do not get the basic exercise they need. The huge secret is really not so elusive; it's balance.

 

[Yanka]

Well, I do have scientific facts that Atkins is bad for you.

The ones who are here suggesting that low-carb is healthy for long term, how long have you been on it? Do you think you would think it's a great thing in one year's time? On five years time? After ten years?

I doubt many of aren't Eskimo. Many of these nations who do survive on low-carb diet are developed a little bit differently. Their bodies are used to functioning that way. I wouldn't say everyone's body works like that.

I believe all this hate for carbs is a fad. It's like people hating bread, and thinking it is the highest evil on this Earth.

I am sorry. I have a little trouble understanding some of your sentences. I am aware differnet people vary a little in their oxidyzing rates, but I am sure if certain people had superhuman power of suriviving without a macronutrient while others fail, we'd know by know.

 

[tott]

Well, I do have scientific facts that Atkins is bad for you.

The ones who are here suggesting that low-carb is healthy for long term, how long have you been on it? Do you think you would think it's a great thing in one year's time? On five years time? After ten years?

I doubt many of aren't Eskimo. Many of these nations who do survive on low-carb diet are developed a little bit differently. Their bodies are used to functioning that way. I wouldn't say everyone's body works like that.

I believe all this hate for carbs is a fad. It's like people hating bread, and thinking it is the highest evil on this Earth.

WhiteLinen, would you mind sharing those scientific facts about Atkins being bad for you? I'm very curious since I avoid most carbs myself.

I've only been eating low carb for a couple of months, but I do know three people personally that have been on low carb diets for two years or longer. They are perfectly healthy.

I'm not an eskimo (and neither are my friends), but I do not for a second believe that they are created in any significantly different way when it comes to basic metabolism of proteins, carbs and fats.

You say that their bodies are used to functioning that way, but you and me can also adapt our bodies to a carb-less diet if we want to.

Key words being if we want to. I'm sorry if you or anyone else feels like I'm pushing for low carb, that was not my intention. I've already stated that I'm not suggesting that anyone give up any carbs, and that I don't believe all carbs are necessarily bad.

Like TheFLUFFER, I just get frustrated when people are passing off ignorant statements as facts.

 

[Whitelinen]

I'm not an eskimo (and neither are my friends), but I do not for a second believe that they are created in any significantly different way when it comes to basic metabolism of proteins, carbs and fats.

You say that their bodies are used to functioning that way, but you and me can also adapt our bodies to a carb-less diet if we want to.

Or then it's something that takes a few generations to develop.

WhiteLinen, would you mind sharing those scientific facts about Atkins being bad for you? I'm very curious since I avoid most carbs myself.

Here: http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/24h/id56703.html It's in Finnish though.

Swedish scientists and scientists at Harvard University have examined the subject, and found out that while eating low-carb does make you lose weight, the death rate is higher. Low-carb diet raises the risk of cardiovascular diseases significantly.

Here's some info in English: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01774.x

 

[Yanka]

Or then it's something that takes a few generations to develop.



Here: http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/24h/id56703.html It's in Finnish though.

Swedish scientists and scientists at Harvard University have examined the subject, and found out that while eating low-carb does make you lose weight, the death rate is higher. Low-carb diet raises the risk of cardiovascular diseases significantly.

Here's some info in English: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01774.x

OK, I decided to be a total nerd about it and looked up that study. While has some value for a dietitian i guess, it is a bit irellevant for your argument. From what I gathered, they distributed a questionair among a group of women and asked them what foods they ate for the previous 6 months. They weren't monitored or asked these questions again, it was just assumed they continued eating the same way for 12 years. This is very silly. Habits change ith age. Then, they seperated the levels of carb consumption in 9 groups, with 32% of carbohydrates in the diet being considered Low carb. So if you consume 2500 calories a day, 32% of carbs, it is still 200 grams! A "nutrinionist" here mentioned 150grams being a recommended intake. So their "low carb" actually ends up being "high-carb".

 

[tott]

You beat me to it, The FLUFFER!

Since I already typed my reply I'll post it anyway:

Two of the co-writers of this study, Adami/Trichopoulos, have been accused of greenwashing for chemical industries in the past. The writers of this study have also changed during the years. This is at least a reason to be a bit suspicious.

This is how this research was presented in 2001 on MEP's website:

"Women`s lifestyle and health

Research project: C8468
English title: Women`s lifestyle and health
Project leader: Hans-Olov Adami
Institution: Department of Medical Epidemiology (MEP)

Hypothesis: Oral contraceptives, dietary habits and other lifestyle factors affect the risk for cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other chronic diseases in young women.

Approach Starting in 1991: A comprehensive questionnaire was mailed to 96,000 Swedish women aged 30-49 years. Approximately 50,000 completed questionnaires were returned providing detailed information on a wide range of lifestyle factors with a focus on oral contraceptive use, diet, UV light exposure, reproductive factors and familial occurrence of cancer. This study is strictly coordinated with a similar study among 60,000 young women in Norway; apart from the dietary component, the questionnaires are identical and joint analyses are planned.

Status: All questionnaires have been computerized. We are awaiting a sufficiently long period of follow-up to allow meaningful analyses of the occurrence of, primarily, cancers of the breast and large bowel, and total mortality and incidence of cardiovascular diseases. Data cleaning and creation of a master file through merging of the Swedish and Norwegian components is under way.

Time plan: The initiation of analyses has been delayed due to lack of funding. Several funding possibilities are now considered and will be pursued during 1999.

Main Financing: Pharmaceutical companies, Swedish Cancer Society
Partners: Eiliv Lund, Ceilia Magnusson, Ingemar Persson, Alicja Wolk.
Entered 980429
Updated 990908"

So the women who did choose to answer this questionnaire did so in 1991. No follow-ups have been made. This report assumes that people haven't changed their diets or lifestyles for 16 years. Epidemiological studies are tricky and easily misleading by nature...

And the focus of the study appears to have shifted a bit. Here's a quote from the currrent study: "We set out to examine whether low carbohydrate/high protein diets are associated with increased mortality in a general population cohort of relatively young women in Sweden. The relevance of the study group is high, as low carbohydrate weight control diets are particularly used by women."

You might wonder how many Swedish women that were aware of low carb diets and Atkins in 1991... And even if they were, how would you know that they didn't change their diets during these 16 years?

This report is simply irrelevant. The death rates were also so low that they are statistically insignificant either way.

 

[tott]

Or then it's something that takes a few generations to develop.

In that case, like I said earlier: I must've been dead since January. I never knew death was so much like living.

 

[FashionGrrrrl]

If anyone here is going to use the Eskimos as an excuse to cut out carbs from their diet they'd better be eating like an Eskimo or expect health problems. The Eskimos ate as much of the animal as possible, which provided a wider variety of nutrients than the skeletal muscle and fat that we eat. You'd better be chowing down on brains, livers, kidneys, testicals and bone marrow too.

 

[Whitelinen]

In that case, like I said earlier: I must've been dead since January. I never knew death was so much like living.

Like I have said multiple times, it might take time for the bad effects to come. I don't think I have ever said that low-carb isn't effective for a short period? January, February, March = three months. You've been on this diet for a short time. But what will you be saying after you have been on this diet for a year? Or five years? Can you 100% it hasn't caused you any damage?

If anyone here is going to use the Eskimos as an excuse to cut out carbs from their diet they'd better be eating like an Eskimo or expect health problems. The Eskimos ate as much of the animal as possible, which provided a wider variety of nutrients than the skeletal muscle and fat that we eat. You'd better be chowing down on brains, livers, kidneys, testicals and bone marrow too.

Exactly.

 

[Yanka]

If anyone here is going to use the Eskimos as an excuse to cut out carbs from their diet they'd better be eating like an Eskimo or expect health problems. The Eskimos ate as much of the animal as possible, which provided a wider variety of nutrients than the skeletal muscle and fat that we eat. You'd better be chowing down on brains, livers, kidneys, testicals and bone marrow too.

Maybe but it still didn't provide them with carbohydrates!

 

[tott]

If anyone here is going to use the Eskimos as an excuse to cut out carbs from their diet they'd better be eating like an Eskimo or expect health problems. The Eskimos ate as much of the animal as possible, which provided a wider variety of nutrients than the skeletal muscle and fat that we eat. You'd better be chowing down on brains, livers, kidneys, testicals and bone marrow too.

From what I've learnt, the eskimos eat (or used to eat) almost exclusively muscle meat and fat. Mostly raw or very lightly cooked meat. Sometimes liver and brain.

You can supposedly live on an all meat/fat diet as long as the meat is raw or very rare. Heat appears to destroy some of the important nutrients.

I know I wouldn't want to eat (almost) raw meat for the rest of my life...

But at least we seem to have agreed that carbs aren't essential, so whatever...

 

[FashionGrrrrl]

Well, I think we've agreed that the Eskimo diet doesn't sound very appealing (whatever it is they ate). What I want to know is why someone would voluntarily miss out on the delicious, healthy variety that fruits, vegetables and whole grains provide to the diet. I think it would drive my body nuts if I were to cut these out of my diet (not to mention the constipation it would cause, something that doesn't seem very conducive to being healthy/losing weight and would be kind of painful). It just seems very unnecessary and potentially damaging. Are we really sure that a high-protein diet like this would not deplete calcium in the bones and lead to osteoporosis? That is definitely a long term effect that could be happening without the dieter even knowing it. Why are people so scared of carbs? I've been losing plenty of weight on a balanced diet including fruits, veggies and whole grains and my digestive system has never felt healthier.

Anyway, I firmly believe that carbohydrates are essential to good health. Maybe you can continue to survive without them for quite some time, but I would be interested to know what you eventually die from.

 

[FashionGrrrrl]

Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure it stresses your liver and kidneys too. Be nice to your organs, people, and they will thank you by continuing to perform their intended functions.

 

[shoexgal]

i didn't think it would b hard to get off the refined sugar for 1 day but I can't seem to go even one day. I didn't know how hard it would be. I'm going to make it my mission to no have any sugary soda or refined sugars 2m. I already had a coke today NOOO!

 

[POTC_ROXS]

it took me a LONG time but i am gald i did as sugar is poison to the body and has been linked to cancer. however, i decided to eliminate sugar from my diet because i wanted to lose weight. it was hard because of the addictive nature of sugar and beacuse everyone around me thought i was insane (i decided to give up sugar in grade 6!) before i started eliminating sugar i never realized the hold it had on me. now the thoughts of chocolate, cake, cookies or ice cream disgust me ive been sugar free for a years now and so happy! good luck!

 

[shoexgal]

how did you go about it? ^ I struggle with it so much. I almost had a slice of cheesecake today but I turned around and left the place. I really hate myself but its like a drug that is omnipresent in everywhere you go.

 

[cheepmunk]

I think I heard somewhere that it takes about three weeks for your body to adopt a new habit or break an old one, so if you can stay off sugar for that long, yay! shoexgal, processed sugars aren't good for you, but if you really crave something, it might be a good idea to let yourself have a little teeny piece. (Of course, I only say that because I would never have the willpower to turn around and leave .)

Re: the eskimo discussion, I don't think one can really draw conclusions that carbs aren't necessary by pointing to eskimos. Humans from various ethnic groups can have wildly different reactions to certain food groups. The Pima Indians of Arizona are a perfect example of an ethnic group that just cannot process certain foods the way other Indians and races can. There is obviously some genetic factor that is making them more susceptible to diabetes than Europeans or even other Indians. Before introduction to a Western diet, they were generally lean and had a very low rate of diabetes. After regularly consuming Western food, however, obesity became a major problem and the diabetes rate shot up and has stayed up. There is obviously some genetic factor (scientists think low metabolic rate or genetic problems with insulin production) that makes their bodies unable to deal with the same diet that I happily live on every day. Just because the diet works for one group, doesn't mean it isn't deadly to another.

In other news... are fruits and grains really that horrible to people? I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to eat them. Processed, refined sugars, sure. But oranges and grapes and watermelon and apples and bananas? Sorry, y'all lost me.

Edit: It's my 100th post! Wheeeeee! *dances*

 

[indigoskies]

wow, people sure have it tough.
i'm a natural sweet tooth, so... well -- it's hard not to eat something sweet once in a while.
calling sugar a drug is taking it too far though.

 

[Irene_A]

That's something I've been wondering too. I understand a diet without processed sugars but without carbs in general seems a bit sureal.

 

[laurette]

anything new?
I've had a "relapse" on sugar a while ago and know it's so hard to restrain myself from the cravings...*argh*