That Sugar Film

[regentrude]

I learned something crazy the other day.  I might be the last to know, but it was interesting anyway.  If you look at nutrition labels and think hey look sugar is several ingredients down so it's not too bad.  WELL...a lot of companies use multiple forms of sugar that they list separately.  What people often do not realize is if you add up all those types of sugar, the sugar content would be pushed closer to the top of the ingredient list (or even at the top).  But companies are sneaky!  So the latest labeling guidelines require emphasis with the wording "added sugars".

 

Yes, they've done that for a long time. However, sugar is also listed separately on the nutrition info, so one can see at one glance how much total sugar (natural plus all forms of added) is in the food.

 

[rutamattatt]

Prior to this, we would eat vanilla Greek yogurt with granola in it for a "healthy snack".  SO.  MUCH.  SUGAR.   But I thought I was giving them a terrific and healthy option.

[Pen]

Prior to this, we would eat vanilla Greek yogurt with granola in it for a "healthy snack".  SO.  MUCH.  SUGAR.   But I thought I was giving them a terrific and healthy option.

 

 

 

Having learned about the film on this thread, I just saw the movie.  There are some parts I thought were silly, or annoying, but over all it has inspired me to want to make changes.  

 

I also thought that I was providing pretty healthy foods such as you describe above, especially given that I was going with organic versions, of yoghurt etc..  Now I am feeling like it has been damaging due to the sugar even if not with added pesticides on top of that.

 

I wish ds were younger and more amenable to watching it, and buying in to having less sugar.

 

Any suggestions for transforming the way we do things would be appreciated.  DS is a teen and I think pretty sugar addicted.

 

I am eager to change, but also probably sugar addicted.  One thing I use medicinally is called d-Ribose and is a form of sugar, that helps with mitochondrial support. I don't know how that fits in. I don't even know what d-Ribose breaks down into in terms of glucose, fructose etc. (I'm about to try to look that up), but it is somehow supposed to help with the Krebs cycle. Now though I am concerned that maybe it is also a problem.

[gardenmom5]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant (ETA and did not change his exercise pattern)

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

ETA: If you google That Sugar film criticism" you will find a number of analyses that look at the faulty science behind the film.

 

I've experience first-hand what carbs do to my thyroid function - which is slowing down the metabolism. and it can affect it within one meal consuming something that triggers it.

 

a number of years ago - I did a sugar free diet.  NO dairy (lactose), NO fruit (fructose), no bread (yeast - which really should have told me something.  I have zero tolerance for yeast), no sweeteners of any kind (it drives me bats how many people think substituting honey/agave/etc/ for white sugar is healthy.  it's still sugar.)

I ate as much as I wanted (so I wasn't hungry) - including pasta (homemade sauce.  I was once given a large costco container of spaghetti sauce - and was disgusted by how sweet it was because it was loaded with added sugar.).   it took a few weeks to detox my system - but I dropped 10lbs in a month. (and a size.)  and i had TONS of energy!  (re: yeast - I've learned the hard way it really does kill my energy. and it doesn't take much.)   my dry skin - was gone.  my allergies - were gone.

I think the biggest effect was it reduces inflammation.

[Catwoman]

I've experience first-hand what carbs do to my thyroid function - which is slowing down the metabolism. and it can affect it within one meal consuming something that triggers it.

 

a number of years ago - I did a sugar free diet. NO dairy (lactose), NO fruit (fructose), no bread (yeast - which really should have told me something. I have zero tolerance for yeast), no sweeteners of any kind (it drives me bats how many people think substituting honey/agave/etc/ for white sugar is healthy. it's still sugar.)

I ate as much as I wanted (so I wasn't hungry) - including pasta (homemade sauce. I was once given a large costco container of spaghetti sauce - and was disgusted by how sweet it was because it was loaded with added sugar.). it took a few weeks to detox my system - but I dropped 10lbs in a month. (and a size.) and i had TONS of energy! (re: yeast - I've learned the hard way it really does kill my energy. and it doesn't take much.) my dry skin - was gone. my allergies - were gone.

I think the biggest effect was it reduces inflammation.

Were you able to stick with the sugar-free diet?

[Carrie12345]

Time scales are too short and magnitude of effect is too large - metabolic rates most likely do not alter this drastically in such a short time.

 

As a scientist, I want a clean documentation of data before I believe a claim. As far as I have found, he has not presented these data anywhere. He has only estimated his personal caloric intake, which is notoriously unreliable. 

I prefer science over propaganda.

 

Yup.  I am not a defender of processed sugar, and I've always wanted to watch and like the movie (well, a movie) about it.  But I could already tell by the trailer that there was no way I wasn't going to get mad at the television screen.

 

There are plenty of scientific, and even reasonable unscientific reasons to cut sugar.  There's no reason for propaganda.

 

(Says someone who agrees with the likes of Michael Moore, but can't watch most of the crap they churn out to "support" their positions.)

[SporkUK]

I'm wary of movies like this as pretty much any guinea pig food movie has results that no one else can replicate and far too often exploit poor communities for entertainment. I really dislike trying to demonize any food - that doesn't help any form of disordered eating - and making consumption of any food responsible for far larger social and medical problems. Acting like sugar is the demon people just need to be educated out of it with these flashy shock tactics and that will make everything better and pretty much ignore the socially enforced poverty and neocolonialism and trauma in many of the communities targetted with these kinds of documentaries I think is privileged people patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened when it's more to do with the chance of birth. Maybe that's because I'm on the opposite end in a community struggling to keep all its kids fed and to get underweight kids to be taken as a serious issue, living in a food desert where fresh produce is not in walking distance for many people but I've got 5 takeaways in a 5 minute walk, and spent too much time as a teen not sure of my next meal...the whole treatment of food as solely an individual's choices and problems are just a lack of good decision making rather than a complicated systemic web of issues of access and laws and business and media and barriers really, obviously, gets me riled up. The whole industry around these sort of documentaries feels very cruel to me. They won't give most of the people used as teaching props access to anything better. 

 

On the other hand, yeah, there is quite strong evidence that sugar has limited use by the body and the current food industry has foods balanced to be more sugary to the detriment of nutrition. We could lobby to bring in better legislation and regulations on so many things, better guidelines for how the media discusses science around food (I know we've had threads on here about news reports on food and how few actually believe much of it because how bad it can be), discuss science and media literacy, better zoning laws, higher food standards, reconsider and redistribute which foods gets support in being grown and deal with how much produce is wasted to maintain profits... have food treated more as a life essential people should have safe, good access to rather than just any other commodity and a race to the bottom. We'd need a lot of changes to do much of that and most things are looking to go the other way (particularly in the UK where the party in power wants to lower food standard laws so it can trade more with the US), but it's what would be needed to really do good for the most people. 

 

Personally, years ago I tried an uber crunchy sugar-free diet (ignoring that tomatoes and many commonly used vegetables here have fructose), I got much sicker. It was too energy intensive for me both physically and in dealing with living in a low access area (so much traveling and shopping, both of which would be on my list of least favourite things to do), I couldn't consume enough calories, and it further messed up my relationship with food and my perception of myself. I crashed and burned and felt horrible. I eat far better when I do less and use what's closer even when it's embracing frozen spiced vegetables, veggie meatballs, and premade rice bowls. 

[ktgrok]

Spork, this movie wasn't at all about blaming the consumer, but about the poor labeling, poor advice out there, the way manufacturers sneak it into everything, poor dietary guidelines, etc. 

 

I totally agree that the blame the victim thing is intolerable. 

[gardenmom5]

Were you able to stick with the sugar-free diet?

 

It's hard to stick to it, especially with how extreme it was with kids in the house.

 

I'm heading back that way - but a little bit more allowance.  I can have a piece of birthday cake for someone's birthday/etc.. I can have one day a week where I can indulge.    I eat fruit.   I don't do much milk because it seems to contribute to inflammation.  I do allow myself occasional ice cream. (on that "one day a week".)

 

I took the indulge idea from a guy who was morbidly obese - and when he was finally ready to change his diet - he was really strict six days a week - and one day he allowed himself whatever he wanted.    

a decent blackberry pie I allow myself anytime as much as is available. (generally that's not much) . . . it's a delicacy here.

 

in the beginning - when I'd have cravings - I could put them off until that "one day" when I allowed myself to indulge without guilt.   because I knew I could then, it calmed the cravings.   and I didn't crave as much when it came time to indulge.

[Catwoman]

It's hard to stick to it, especially with how extreme it was with kids in the house.

 

I'm heading back that way - but a little bit more allowance. I can have a piece of birthday cake for someone's birthday/etc.. I can have one day a week where I can indulge. I eat fruit. I don't do much milk because it seems to contribute to inflammation. I do allow myself occasional ice cream. (on that "one day a week".)

 

I took the indulge idea from a guy who was morbidly obese - and when he was finally ready to change his diet - he was really strict six days a week - and one day he allowed himself whatever he wanted.

a decent blackberry pie I allow myself anytime as much as is available. (generally that's not much) . . . it's a delicacy here.

 

in the beginning - when I'd have cravings - I could put them off until that "one day" when I allowed myself to indulge without guilt. because I knew I could then, it calmed the cravings. and I didn't crave as much when it came time to indulge.

I remember years ago, I used to do Joyce Vedral's workouts and in her books, she used to talk about how she lost weight and she recommend that you pick one day a week and make it your day to eat whatever you want. She said she couldn't stand the idea of never eating certain foods again, but if she knew she could have them once a week, usually by the time her free eating day rolled around, she didn't even care about it any more. At least I think it was Joyce Vedral who said that -- it has been a while!

 

I never tried it because I'm not a dieter, but the idea made sense to me.

[gardenmom5]

I remember years ago, I used to do Joyce Vedral's workouts and in her books, she used to talk about how she lost weight and she recommend that you pick one day a week and make it your day to eat whatever you want. She said she couldn't stand the idea of never eating certain foods again, but if she knew she could have them once a week, usually by the time her free eating day rolled around, she didn't even care about it any more. At least I think it was Joyce Vedral who said that -- it has been a while!

 

I never tried it because I'm not a dieter, but the idea made sense to me.

 

for me, it's not about a "diet", so much as a change in lifestyle eating.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to eat bread again (yeast makes me feel drugged) - but i can't eat it now.

 

but that's the thing - we have yeast in our guts - and yeast feeds on sugars.  so the less sugar there is, the lower the yeast population that can be sustained.

[Catwoman]

for me, it's not about a "diet", so much as a change in lifestyle eating.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to eat bread again (yeast makes me feel drugged) - but i can't eat it now.

 

but that's the thing - we have yeast in our guts - and yeast feeds on sugars. so the less sugar there is, the lower the yeast population that can be sustained.

I hope it works for you. It sounds like you have a sensible plan that isn't so extreme that it will be impossible to maintain long term. You're giving yourself enough flexibility so you know that nothing is totally forbidden, and hopefully you'll find that you feel so much better on the days when you're following your plan than you do after the free-eating days that you may end up indulging a lot less as time goes on and you get used to your new lifestyle.

[gardenmom5]

I hope it works for you. It sounds like you have a sensible plan that isn't so extreme that it will be impossible to maintain long term. You're giving yourself enough flexibility so you know that nothing is totally forbidden, and hopefully you'll find that you feel so much better on the days when you're following your plan than you do after the free-eating days that you may end up indulging a lot less as time goes on and you get used to your new lifestyle.

I feel so much better not eating bread, that not even croissants are tempting.

[Catwoman]

I feel so much better not eating bread, that not even croissants are tempting.

Wow, you must feel A LOT better if croissants aren't tempting you!!! :)

Edited September 10, 2017 by Catwoman

[SporkUK]

I think the focus on more labelling is an individualist consumer solution to a systemic corporate action - a bandaid that so far here has had little impact on improving quality of food (there was a big thing on labeling in the UK a few years back, it's mostly died down now). Advice, dietary guidelines... even if someone got good advice that fully took into their individual dietary needs, does that person have access? Does the community getting that advice? Sure, labeling and advice is good, but if my local shop only has one type of bread that day, it really doesn't matter what is on the label because that's what most people are going to buy. I know some enjoy traveling to source food, there are whole books and blogs and such on it, but that's not desirable or even possible for many before getting into how these sort of things tend to create more burden particularly on disabled people and women  in general to do even more labour in the home to meet social standards. 

 

Everything I have ever seen these kinds of movies encourage is consumer based - we'll buy better and buy the supplies to make our own and everything will be better. The collective action used to bringing in the protections we have so far are often ignored and the groups who fought for many of them are often the  most negatively affected by poor degrading regulations. Even the boycotts are typically the "we don't buy those anyways" affairs that have little organization or attempts at widespread change. It's little different to me than click activism, very appealing, makes a person feel good and knowledgeable... but there is evidence that people do less community wise after such tactics. The barriers for everyone else stay the same and corporations continue as they are. 

 

I get the appeal and that people like making and watching these sorts of things, and some may be inspired to do things based on documentaries, I just find the methodology very suspect and exploitative and the promised results in either direction rarely achievable. Really, treating a person and their pain as edutainment props...what good is going to come from that - is it going to change industries? make dental access easier for anyone? change any laws? Shock tactics rarely work on individuals in the long term, and with difficulties many have to getting medical care and the stigma that treats these things as individual failing, many of the inclusions in such feel rather thoughtless. 

 

[Bluegoat]

Yup.  I am not a defender of processed sugar, and I've always wanted to watch and like the movie (well, a movie) about it.  But I could already tell by the trailer that there was no way I wasn't going to get mad at the television screen.

 

There are plenty of scientific, and even reasonable unscientific reasons to cut sugar.  There's no reason for propaganda.

 

(Says someone who agrees with the likes of Michael Moore, but can't watch most of the crap they churn out to "support" their positions.)

 

Oh, Gosh, yes.

 

I always wish MM would cut out the propaganda, because then they would really be great movies you could recommend for info.

 

So far, I don't think I've seen one diet related movie I could support.

[MBM]

The sugar lobby in the US is extremely powerful. Their purpose is to buy influence which means to outright obtain or purchase legislation that is favorable to them. This is how lobbying works.

 

Many government agencies are overseen by former leaders of private industries who are less concerned about the consumer and more concerned with helping their industry (captured agencies). It sounds cynical but buying influence is how they get their way.

[wintermom]

I watched another documentary on the same topic, "Sugar Coated," which I found very interesting and informative. The sugar board in the US, extending to Canada, Europe and many other countries internationally, has been using similar PR tactics as the tobacco industry used to maintain and increase the consumption of sugar (and keep their profits). 

[wintermom]

 

I think the focus on more labelling is an individualist consumer solution to a systemic corporate action - a bandaid that so far here has had little impact on improving quality of food (there was a big thing on labeling in the UK a few years back, it's mostly died down now). Advice, dietary guidelines... even if someone got good advice that fully took into their individual dietary needs, does that person have access? Does the community getting that advice? Sure, labeling and advice is good, but if my local shop only has one type of bread that day, it really doesn't matter what is on the label because that's what most people are going to buy. I know some enjoy traveling to source food, there are whole books and blogs and such on it, but that's not desirable or even possible for many before getting into how these sort of things tend to create more burden particularly on disabled people and women  in general to do even more labour in the home to meet social standards. 

 

Everything I have ever seen these kinds of movies encourage is consumer based - we'll buy better and buy the supplies to make our own and everything will be better. The collective action used to bringing in the protections we have so far are often ignored and the groups who fought for many of them are often the  most negatively affected by poor degrading regulations. Even the boycotts are typically the "we don't buy those anyways" affairs that have little organization or attempts at widespread change. It's little different to me than click activism, very appealing, makes a person feel good and knowledgeable... but there is evidence that people do less community wise after such tactics. The barriers for everyone else stay the same and corporations continue as they are. 

 

I get the appeal and that people like making and watching these sorts of things, and some may be inspired to do things based on documentaries, I just find the methodology very suspect and exploitative and the promised results in either direction rarely achievable. Really, treating a person and their pain as edutainment props...what good is going to come from that - is it going to change industries? make dental access easier for anyone? change any laws? Shock tactics rarely work on individuals in the long term, and with difficulties many have to getting medical care and the stigma that treats these things as individual failing, many of the inclusions in such feel rather thoughtless. 

 

 

The documentary, "Sugar Coated," describes the actions that individuals and associations are doing to combat the giant corporations, and appeal to government health regulating agencies. It's an on-going battle, but for corporations, ultimately the consumer is king. If no one buys sugar-packed ice cream, then they will be forced to change. This may happen sooner than governments regulating the quantity of sugar corporations are allowed to put in their products. 

[Pen]

I'm wary of movies like this as pretty much any guinea pig food movie has results that no one else can replicate and far too often exploit poor communities for entertainment. I really dislike trying to demonize any food - that doesn't help any form of disordered eating - and making consumption of any food responsible for far larger social and medical problems. Acting like sugar is the demon people just need to be educated out of it with these flashy shock tactics and that will make everything better and pretty much ignore the socially enforced poverty and neocolonialism and trauma in many of the communities targetted with these kinds of documentaries I think is privileged people patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened when it's more to do with the chance of birth. Maybe that's because I'm on the opposite end in a community struggling to keep all its kids fed and to get underweight kids to be taken as a serious issue, living in a food desert where fresh produce is not in walking distance for many people but I've got 5 takeaways in a 5 minute walk, and spent too much time as a teen not sure of my next meal...the whole treatment of food as solely an individual's choices and problems are just a lack of good decision making rather than a complicated systemic web of issues of access and laws and business and media and barriers really, obviously, gets me riled up. The whole industry around these sort of documentaries feels very cruel to me. They won't give most of the people used as teaching props access to anything better. 

...

 

 

It sounds like you are lumping it together with other films you've seen and disliked, but did not see this film yourself.  ???

 

It is very much trying to explain that the problem is systemic and Not just an individual's choice and problems, so far as I understood it.  

 

The film's makers apparently cut a lot out of the film to make it more appealing to more viewers, and put the more scientific and dry material into a book.

 

Nonetheless, still left in the film as cut, the film is depicting much of exactly what you are complaining about above.

 

 And the makers started a foundation and are trying to get financial help for the aboriginal community they filmed, who had been getting healthier food -- access to produce etc. -- based on a program (Mai Wiru?) explained in the film, but which then lost government funding.

 

They are also trying to get healthier food programs into schools.

 

 

 

http://www.maiwirufoundation.org/

Edited September 10, 2017 by Pen

[Catwoman]

Ok, this may not be popular, but...

 

I like sugar and I'm not giving it up. :leaving:

 

I don't think eating sugar in moderation is harmful to the average person who doesn't have a health problem that is exacerbated by it. I feel the same way about salt. I like salty food, but again in moderation, and I realize that there is such a thing as too much sodium and that different people need different restrictions on it. Ditto for dietary fat, even the kinds that aren't the "good" kinds.

 

I'm all in favor of educating people on how to have a healthy diet, but I don't think a healthy balanced diet has to necessarily exclude things like a little added sugar here and there.

 

Obviously, I think people should do whatever makes them happy and what makes them feel their best. If not eating sugar makes a person feel better, it seems to be a no-brainer that avoiding sugar is a great idea for them, but I don't think it's necessary for everyone to do that. I have known a lot of people who have lived very long lives, and the thing they seem to have had in common was moderation -- they all seemed to eat a little of everything and not too much of anything -- so that's why I eat whatever I want to eat, but I try to mostly eat the healthy stuff and I trynot to overdo the not-so-great stuff (I eat a few cookies and not the whole bagful.)

 

 

(Edited because I can't type!)

Edited September 10, 2017 by Catwoman

[regentrude]

Ok, this may not be popular, but...

 

I like sugar and I'm not giving it up. :leaving:

 

I don't think eating sugar in moderation is harmful to the average person who doesn't have a health problem that is exacerbated by it. I feel the same way about salt. I like salty food, but again in moderation, and I realize that there is such a thing as too much sodium and that different people need different restrictions on it. Ditto for dietary fat, even the kinds that aren't the "good" kinds.

 

 I have known a lot of people who have lived very long lives, and the thing they seem to have had in common was moderation -- they all seemed to eat a little of everything and not too much of anything -- so that's why I eat whatever I want to eat, but I try to mostly eat the healthy stuff and I trynot to overdo the not-so-great stuff (I eat a few cookies and not the whole bagful.

 

Amen, sister.

 

Both my grandmothers and my great grandmother were gifted bakers. Saturday was the weekly baking day, and they produced wonderful sweet baked goods. They were good cooks and loved to eat; food was important in their lives. All of them were at a healthy weight and lived active lives well into their nineties without chronic health problems other than a few age related ailments that developed in their eighties. 

They ate sugar, bread, fat, meat - and fruits and vegetables. Everything in moderation.

They did not have the luxury to overanalyze their diet and cut out entire food groups, because first of all they had to make sure to get enough to eat. They ate what was available. That seemed to have worked just fine.

[regentrude]

On the topic of moderation/portion sizes:

I am at the moment baking cookies. I have never used an American cookie recipe before. The recipe said it makes 24 cookies, so I halved the ingredients, because I did think it necessary to have two dozen cookies - one dozen seemed plenty. I have shaped cookies and put them on cookie sheets - and I found myself with 28 what I consider "normal size" cookies from what the recipe claims is a dozen.

Edited September 10, 2017 by regentrude

[BarbecueMom]

On the topic of moderation/portion sizes:

I am at the moment baking cookies. I have never used an American cookie recipe before. The recipe said it makes 24 cookies, so I halved the ingredients, because I did think it necessary to have two dozen cookies - one dozen seemed plenty. I have shaped cookies and put them on cookie sheets - and I found myself with 28 what I consider "normal size" cookies from what the recipe claims is a dozen.

Oh good, I didn't follow the French Nutella cookie recipe wrong - eight tiny cookies was probably the correct amount. I wonder why our recipes make such large portions. I'm not even going to try baking Christmas cookies this year. We end up acquiring so many from other places and throwing 2/3 of them away.

 

Side note: what is the temperature and baking time on those fruit and nut bars? I have some nuts and dried cranberries I need to use up.

[Bluegoat]

One of the things I've wondered with some cookie recipes, is if they tend to be bsed on an expectation of larger family size than many have.

[regentrude]

One of the things I've wondered with some cookie recipes, is if they tend to be bsed on an expectation of larger family size than many have.

 

But that would only matter for the number of cookies. There is nothing wrong with a recipe that makes two dozen - there are plenty of occasions where one might want that. The intended size of the cookies (which I think is huge) has nothing to do with family size. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

But that would only matter for the number of cookies. There is nothing wrong with a recipe that makes two dozen - there are plenty of occasions where one might want that. The intended size of the cookies (which I think is huge) has nothing to do with family size. 

 

Yes, it's just the number I'm thinking of.  Someone mentioned upthread about having extra cookies to put in the jar being, perhaps, too many.

 

I used to find that when were were a family of three.  With six, they just don't last that long.

[regentrude]

Side note: what is the temperature and baking time on those fruit and nut bars? I have some nuts and dried cranberries I need to use up.

 

I eyeball it.  Perhaps 375? I usually throw them in the oven with whatever else I am baking. 

Time- until firm and depends on whether you like soft or crunchier. Check after 30- 45  minutes perhaps?

You see I am usually winging it and baking by feel...

[Catwoman]

I eyeball it. Perhaps 375? I usually throw them in the oven with whatever else I am baking.

Time- until firm and depends on whether you like soft or crunchier. Check after 30- 45 minutes perhaps?

You see I am usually winging it and baking by feel...

That makes perfect sense to me -- I do the same thing! :)

[Pen]

Ok, this may not be popular, but...

 

I like sugar and I'm not giving it up. :leaving:

 

I don't think eating sugar in moderation is harmful to the average person who doesn't have a health problem that is exacerbated by it. I feel the same way about salt. I like salty food, but again in moderation, and I realize that there is such a thing as too much sodium and that different people need different restrictions on it. Ditto for dietary fat, even the kinds that aren't the "good" kinds.

 

I'm all in favor of educating people on how to have a healthy diet, but I don't think a healthy balanced diet has to necessarily exclude things like a little added sugar here and there.

 

Obviously, I think people should do whatever makes them happy and what makes them feel their best. If not eating sugar makes a person feel better, it seems to be a no-brainer that avoiding sugar is a great idea for them, but I don't think it's necessary for everyone to do that. I have known a lot of people who have lived very long lives, and the thing they seem to have had in common was moderation -- they all seemed to eat a little of everything and not too much of anything -- so that's why I eat whatever I want to eat, but I try to mostly eat the healthy stuff and I trynot to overdo the not-so-great stuff (I eat a few cookies and not the whole bagful.)

 

 

(Edited because I can't type!)

 

 

 

I don't think the issue is really "a little added sugar here and there."  I think, by all means, keep enjoying your a little added sugar here and there, as people have no doubt done for millennia.

 

I think if I try to cut out added refined sugar, that there is stlll going to be in actuality a moderate amount of a little added sugar here and there.

 

 

With added awareness, though, I was shocked to realize that my ds's commercial organic flavored (the one I looked at was vanilla) yoghurt has 24 grams of sugar per cup / individual serving container. Of which 7 are probably lactose. So around 16-17 grams, or 4 tsp of cane sugar probably.

 

Put as part of his school lunch, the yoghurt is supposed to be a "healthy food" at least as it is marketed. And it is not even like he likes it all that much. If not considered that yoghurt is supposed to be healthy and a probiotic source, and that he hates the sourness of plain yogurt, he'd not be eating it at all. 

 

OTOH his commercial organic peanut butter cups have 6.5 grams of sugar  each.  The pb cups are supposed to be dessert/candy.  But the yoghurt apparently has twice as much added sugar--around 4 tsp for that little container--than does the candy item.  The yogurt also has more sugar than an actual candy bar I just found the ingredients label for.  The yogurt, other than need for keeping it cool, should probably be sold on the candy aisle.

 

Those supposedly healthy yoghurts probably have more sugar in each of them than my great-grandmother (who lived to be over 100) probably got total sugar in a  week as a child...or as an adult, for that matter.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Pen

[Bluegoat]

With yoghurt, I've had a hard time finding a brand with a little sugar, not too much - especially since I only buy full fat.

 

I don't like to eat it plain by itself - as a condiment that's fine, but alone I find it just a bit too sour.

 

When I was a kid, I used to eat the tops out of the fruit on the bottom type - it wasn't as sweet as the stirred, but it was sweeter than plain.  If I mixed in the fruit, it was too sweet.

 

It really drove my mom bananas.

 

I now mix in some jam or honey or maple syrup to taste, but I have to buy tubs, and the kids eat those too quickly.  I should probably just put them in smaller containers, but I always seem to lose those.

[regentrude]

With added awareness, though, I was shocked to realize that my ds's commercial organic flavored (the one I looked at was vanilla) yoghurt has 24 grams of sugar per cup / individual serving container. Of which 7 are probably lactose. So around 16-17 grams, or 4 tsp of cane sugar probably.

 

Put as part of his school lunch, the yoghurt is supposed to be a "healthy food" at least as it is marketed. And it is not even like he likes it all that much. If not considered that yoghurt is supposed to be healthy and a probiotic source, and that he hates the sourness of plain yogurt, he'd not be eating it at all. 

 

If he does not like plain yoghurt, mix it with some fruit to provide sweetness and flavor. Berries are great. As are cooked and spiced apples and pears. He can take it in a screw top jar. I like to add some unsweetened muesli to mine as well.

[whitestavern]

Ok, this may not be popular, but...

 

I like sugar and I'm not giving it up. :leaving:

 

I don't think eating sugar in moderation is harmful to the average person who doesn't have a health problem that is exacerbated by it. I feel the same way about salt. I like salty food, but again in moderation, and I realize that there is such a thing as too much sodium and that different people need different restrictions on it. Ditto for dietary fat, even the kinds that aren't the "good" kinds.

 

I'm all in favor of educating people on how to have a healthy diet, but I don't think a healthy balanced diet has to necessarily exclude things like a little added sugar here and there.

 

Obviously, I think people should do whatever makes them happy and what makes them feel their best. If not eating sugar makes a person feel better, it seems to be a no-brainer that avoiding sugar is a great idea for them, but I don't think it's necessary for everyone to do that. I have known a lot of people who have lived very long lives, and the thing they seem to have had in common was moderation -- they all seemed to eat a little of everything and not too much of anything -- so that's why I eat whatever I want to eat, but I try to mostly eat the healthy stuff and I trynot to overdo the not-so-great stuff (I eat a few cookies and not the whole bagful.)

 

 

(Edited because I can't type!)

 

The difference between our grandmothers' time and ours is that there is added sugar in almost everything now. Back then, the foods that had sugar were the sweet desserts. So yes, even if you had a slice of pie every day, you were likely getting way less sugar that anyone is today. So now we're eating all these foods with added sugar plus the sweet desserts! Also, the homemade desserts likely had less sugar than what's being bought at the grocery store today.

 

[whitestavern]

With yoghurt, I've had a hard time finding a brand with a little sugar, not too much - especially since I only buy full fat.

 

I don't like to eat it plain by itself - as a condiment that's fine, but alone I find it just a bit too sour.

 

When I was a kid, I used to eat the tops out of the fruit on the bottom type - it wasn't as sweet as the stirred, but it was sweeter than plain.  If I mixed in the fruit, it was too sweet.

 

It really drove my mom bananas.

 

I now mix in some jam or honey or maple syrup to taste, but I have to buy tubs, and the kids eat those too quickly.  I should probably just put them in smaller containers, but I always seem to lose those.

 

I don't like regular plain yogurt, but full fat plain Greek is delicious to me, much less bitter. I usually throw in a handful of whatever fruit I have on hand. For the kids I'll saute or stew the fruit before adding; they like it that way.

 

[Pen]

nm

Edited September 11, 2017 by Pen

[Guest]

With yoghurt, I've had a hard time finding a brand with a little sugar, not too much - especially since I only buy full fat.

 

I don't like to eat it plain by itself - as a condiment that's fine, but alone I find it just a bit too sour.

 

When I was a kid, I used to eat the tops out of the fruit on the bottom type - it wasn't as sweet as the stirred, but it was sweeter than plain. If I mixed in the fruit, it was too sweet.

 

It really drove my mom bananas.

 

I now mix in some jam or honey or maple syrup to taste, but I have to buy tubs, and the kids eat those too quickly. I should probably just put them in smaller containers, but I always seem to lose those.

I would love to find some affordable, individual containers of full fat Greek yogurt that is sweet enough that my kids will eat it but not as sweet as ice cream. Like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[Janeway]

I completely believe the weight gain thing. Sugar affects insulin which also affects processing food to fat or using as energy.

[Meriwether]

The difference between our grandmothers' time and ours is that there is added sugar in almost everything now. Back then, the foods that had sugar were the sweet desserts. So yes, even if you had a slice of pie every day, you were likely getting way less sugar that anyone is today. So now we're eating all these foods with added sugar plus the sweet desserts! Also, the homemade desserts likely had less sugar than what's being bought at the grocery store today.

 

Right. And the added sugars mess with the taste buds, too, so that stuff that is supposed to be sweet doesn't taste so sweet unless it has a lot of sure. It was frustrating to me while doing Whole 30 that so many things have sugar added. Sausage does not need sugar!

[BarbecueMom]

Yes, it's just the number I'm thinking of. Someone mentioned upthread about having extra cookies to put in the jar being, perhaps, too many.

 

I used to find that when were were a family of three. With six, they just don't last that long.

But if the serving size is one small cookie, even a half dozen is enough for a family of six. One per person. Not one for each hand, or a small stack carried to the bedroom on a napkin after the kids are in bed (DH!), or fishing one out in the middle of the night, or "Can I have another?" Part of the deal with baked goods in our culture is size and quantity, rather than savoring a small portion and anticipating the next time we get around to baking something.

 

I'm making changes during the holidays this year. I'm personally not baking any cookies or Christmas treats. Between my mom and DH's coworkers and other friends and relatives, we end up with plenty of holiday-themed sugar between Thanksgiving and President's Day. I can send the kids to my mom's to bake with her. This tradition of baking umpteen batches of cookies, eating 2-3 a day, and throwing out what's still left two months later is going to stop. Just like Rudolph playing in stores before Halloween, it's too much, for too long.

[Bluegoat]

But if the serving size is one small cookie, even a half dozen is enough for a family of six. One per person. Not one for each hand, or a small stack carried to the bedroom on a napkin after the kids are in bed (DH!), or fishing one out in the middle of the night, or "Can I have another?" Part of the deal with baked goods in our culture is size and quantity, rather than savoring a small portion and anticipating the next time we get around to baking something.

 

I'm making changes during the holidays this year. I'm personally not baking any cookies or Christmas treats. Between my mom and DH's coworkers and other friends and relatives, we end up with plenty of holiday-themed sugar between Thanksgiving and President's Day. I can send the kids to my mom's to bake with her. This tradition of baking umpteen batches of cookies, eating 2-3 a day, and throwing out what's still left two months later is going to stop. Just like Rudolph playing in stores before Halloween, it's too much, for too long.

 

I'd never go to the trouble of baking cookies to just have one serving each, and I think that's pretty typical.  I want to be able to stick some in lunches for a few days, or have them after supper a second night.  Baking six is as much work as baking 24, and 24 will last the week.

[Catwoman]

I'd never go to the trouble of baking cookies to just have one serving each, and I think that's pretty typical. I want to be able to stick some in lunches for a few days, or have them after supper a second night. Baking six is as much work as baking 24, and 24 will last the week.

I agree. I can't imagine baking only 6 small cookies, either. It would seem like a waste of time to me, and it would take me longer to clean up afterward than it would take to eat the cookies.

[regentrude]

 Baking six is as much work as baking 24, and 24 will last the week.

 

If you hide them.

[Bluegoat]

If you hide them.

 

From myself, mostly!

 

I actually will often put them in the freezer, and then I can just pop them in lunch bags as required.

[regentrude]

From myself, mostly!

 

I actually will often put them in the freezer, and then I can just pop them in lunch bags as required.

 

My grandma was a big baker; she lived with us, and her gift to the family were large ceramic pots full of seven different kinds of Christmas cookies. SO good. She started baking early in December, but cookies were saved until Christmas Eve. She had a small closet off her room, locked the cookies in there, and hid the key. We kids knew where the key was; it was my dad she was hiding it from.