Cutting down sugar

[Zoe Girl]

I agree, maybe because I am in the family that really does what is healthy even when it is hard. I get comments on how I look much younger than my age, and yeah I do things to promote my health. I really hate women's magazines with diet tips and dessert recipes. If I care for my family I will feed them deal.

BTW it looks like 5 lbs down just by staying in sugar recommendations and having lower stress

[Yppej]

I am still struggling. Last week I didn't buy anything with added sugar, but did not resist Alexia Italian herb corn on sale. It is sweetened with sundried tomatoes, and I know dried fruits are concentrated fructose.

[Williamsmith]

I am still struggling. Last week I didn't buy anything with added sugar, but did not resist Alexia Italian herb corn on sale. It is sweetened with sundried tomatoes, and I know dried fruits are concentrated fructose.

There's a definite battle going on between sugar industry monied interests and the "low carb medical advocates". Both have their "experts" and "researchers" funded by each interest. As I recall and as has been pointed out by others ....it is similar to the cigarette battle prior to the tide turning in favor of the "hazardous to your health - causes cancer" crowd.

But sugar is so innocent looking and hidden in so many food products that it is hard to create a poster similar to one where animals had a cigarette in their mouths and the slogan was...."It looks just as stupid when you do it."

As as far as doing your own research...there are just so many easy ways to get your ideas published on the internet that veracity is always something needing considered. At least when the publishing was book and periodical based, someone had to decide if it warranted the financial expense and that someone was Agency or organization based and what was written couldn't easily be edited when it was decidedly beneficial to its publisher. People thought carefully about what they published.

My ownexperience and what I observe in the community is clearly that the diabetes and healthcare problems are a result of our food choices. Healhy choices are terribly limited by monied interests who know their product is junk and yet advertise them as a health food.

In response, we have the vegetarian and vegan crowd , some of which are almost militant in their campaign against red meat, processed meats and all meats in general. They poo poo the anti sugar and starch movement as without scientific merit because to acknowledge it would severely limit the diet.

Its a befuddling atmosphere of contrary expert advice. To me it makes sense to shop around the edges of your grocery and avoid the processed lab food you find in the middle isles because that's where most of our diet is coming from and taking a look around.....it is generally depressing to see the shape we are in. Never mind the collapse of our healthcare system impending due to diseases inspired by this same diet. It really feels more like a cancer on society than anything....no different than the community heroine deal.

We don't need to move more, like Michelle Obama famously championed. We need to eat better. And even she caved to the sugar industry.

[catherine]

There's a definite battle going on between sugar industry monied interests and the "low carb medical advocates". Both have their "experts" and "researchers" funded by each interest. As I recall and as has been pointed out by others ....it is similar to the cigarette battle prior to the tide turning in favor of the "hazardous to your health - causes cancer" crowd.

My ownexperience and what I observe in the community is clearly that the diabetes and healthcare problems are a result of our food choices. Healhy choices are terribly limited by monied interests who know their product is junk and yet advertise them as a health food.

...

Its a befuddling atmosphere of contrary expert advice. To me it makes sense to shop around the edges of your grocery and avoid the processed lab food you find in the middle isles because that's where most of our diet is coming from and taking a look around.....it is generally depressing to see the shape we are in. Never mind the collapse of our healthcare system impending due to diseases inspired by this same diet. It really feels more like a cancer on society than anything....no different than the community heroine deal.

I agree with everything you said. I think it's amazing how high our healthcare costs per capita are: the highest by far of any nation, and our life expectancy is actually going down. Talk about a bad ROI. We are silently sabotaged by the food industry--they're the ones with the great ROI. Yes, we are responsible for our food choices for sure, and moreso as we learn about the effects of bad choices, but as you said, how do we know what's a bad choice and what's a good choice? Just a few years ago, fat was BAD now it's GOOD. Butter was BAD, margarine was GOOD. Now all transfats are BAD. Even eggs--for some reason, we were sucked into believing that EGGS are BAD and a superior alternative is processed, boxed "egg beaters." Now we know that dietary cholesterol only accounts for a small part of our numbers, and eggs are actually a perfect protein.

I have thrown my hands up. And I do my best to make everything from scratch and buy local.

[sweetana3]

I prefer to believe that nothing is really bad but it is a whole lot better to eat good wholesome simple foods and to limit as much processed food as possible. I put white flour and sugar into the processed category. I use butter because it is a "pure" product and margarine is a chemical product. I use eggs but just limit them to a reasonable amount. Hubby uses egg whites in his breakfast to limit his cholesterol. He has a known problem.

We are not going to live forever. But we watch things like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure, quality of breathing, exericse, etc. Nothing to extreme though.

[SteveinMN]

As as far as doing your own research...there are just so many easy ways to get your ideas published on the internet that veracity is always something needing considered. At least when the publishing was book and periodical based, someone had to decide if it warranted the financial expense and that someone was Agency or organization based and what was written couldn't easily be edited when it was decidedly beneficial to its publisher. People thought carefully about what they published.

My ownexperience and what I observe in the community is clearly that the diabetes and healthcare problems are a result of our food choices. Healhy choices are terribly limited by monied interests who know their product is junk and yet advertise them as a health food.

We just don't know enough about nutrition and the human body, period. There are genetic and cultural influences in life that severely screw up controlled testing. Not that I'm making a case for processed foods. Just noting that, despite the increasing prevalence of highly-processed foods across the world, life expectancy in most highly-developed countries keeps going up while the incidence of obesity and diseases like Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease are on the rise. Yay modern medicine? Boo fast-food eat-on-the-run culture? I just don't think we have a full picture today. It's quite complex.

As for research, you're right that the Internet has succeeded in lowering the bar for making opinions and information visible. There is some high-quality research out there -- and some real junk science. I am not a medical doctor. But I understand the scientific method and statistics. I look at who is sponsoring the research/opinion. Or whether it fits well into the rest of their body of work. I look for a preponderance of evidence and educated opinion -- and use that to guide me in further inquiry. Those skills were necessary back when it cost real money to publish and they're still very worthwhile now.

[frugal-one]

Though I am not, generally, a conspiracy theorist, this one hits home.

For the last six years or so the medical community has considered me a diet-controlled diabetic. For the last six years or so I have not displayed the symptoms that diabetics are warned about (neuropathy, slow healing, frequent thirst, etc., though I had high blood pressure [now controlled] before the diagnosis and I am overweight). I've blown low 6s on my A1cs for years. I've done it through a low-carb whole-foods diet (I may not get 60 net carbs in during a day) and exercise. It's taken some effort, but I've had the results to prove it.

The conversation with my doctor a few weeks ago included the dreaded "Our protocol says you should be on a statin" statement. No test beyond the (normal) A1c and a (normal) albumen to verify the need. It's "protocol". I will give my doctor credit for not pushing an oral medication on me and for acknowledging that fat is far less of an enemy than carbs. But I flat-out refused the script, and the more research I've done myself the more I'm convinced it was the right answer.

I really think the advice is based more on economics (of scale) than the sense it makes for an individual. Even the research I did on statins for people without cardiovascular disease makes the American Diabetes Association look incredible -- like they're afraid the diabetic population will go down and they won't be raking in the $$$$ like they used to.

Like I said, I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist. But one wonders why they don't address avoiding diabetes the way they addressed quitting smoking. Where are the dire labels on food packages warning consumers about the dangers of HFCS? Where are the cross-media campaigns warning that fruit juice is, for all intents and purposes, just non-fizzy sugar water and not "part of this healthy breakfast" and that you're far better off eating the actual fruit? Instead we get magazines with gooey desserts on the covers and TV shows ("Your dLife!"?). I just find it puzzling. Or maybe I shouldn't when I think about it.

I recently was told by my doctor that I should be on statins because my cholesterol is way too high. I told her the studies I have seen show that less than 1% of the people who take statins are actually helped. She directed me to the pharmacist. I asked to see studies that indicated how many people are helped by statins. She came back proudly telling me and showing statistics that show 10% are kept from dying and 20% are helped from having an "episode". Some of the side effects of statins are deterioration of leg muscles (most common), diabetes, cancer, cateracts ++ The other thing to note... as we age our cholesterol rises. I don't think 20% is a large enough percentage to take the risk of getting cancer, etc.

[sweetana3]

Not enough for me to take but hubby takes a very low dose of a brand name because his heart scan shows a plaque build up in significant amounts. He has had muscle issues with three previous brands (and friends have all had serious muscle issues too). So other than his mother, all his friends or 100% of the males he knows on statins have had issues with side effects. I bet none of their doctors bothered to report.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I was trying to avoid sweets on weekdays, but uh I ended up grabbing the free trail mix at work that has M&Ms and only eating the M&Ms.

Ah well I'm not perfect, or how it was is I fought them off for awhile, but I felt drained of energy, pleasure, and to a degree will to live while at work (this is probably the universal experience of being at work - but it's painful beyond my capacity to cope with it in more constructive ways than M&Ms sometimes I suppose). So yea want a quick jolt of pleasure. Healthier alternatives may be sometimes to take a walk etc., but clearly I wasn't up to them then (might have been trying to power through and keep working of course).

[Zoe Girl]

So feeling discouraged, I had a soda on Friday night with real sugar (not HFCS). It was my sugar for the day, but the weekend had a little more junk food than I wanted. I got on the scale and it was back up to 2 lbs less than my highest weight again. My overall calories were not that bad, very discouraging. Then my hormones for my period kicked in, explained the sugar craving and the weight gain. I expect in 1-2 days with good eating it will drop down quite a bit. I really want to wear this gorgeous skirt I made last winter that matches my cowgirl boots and is just too tight in the hips, but there is no more fabric to let it out another smidge. I made it out of black wool with a windowpane pattern in red and lined it. Other than that weight loss should help a few other issues.