Reducing sugar intake

Sadly jingl for many people drastically reducing their sugar intake is moderation.
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to nankate or anyone else on this thread.
I was thinking of a telly programme last year where 6 people from Newcastle were supervised (at the university) as they reduced their sugar intake. One man was consuming over 300grams a day, nearly 10 times the recommended level.
Have you ever counted up how much sugar you have each day?

Is that addressed to me personally? If it is, I'm added sugar free for five days a week, and don't go over the top at weekends. Why do you want to know?

Dunno what you mean by the first bit of your post.

Well jingl I put your name at the top of my post, so yes, it was addressed to you.
I meant that many people eat so
much added sugar that even if they drastically reduced their intake, they would still be consuming moderate amounts. (You introduced the term 'moderation in all things', remember?)
I don't particularly want to know if you count up how much sugar you have. It was a rhetorical question.
But if you are really added-sugar free for five days of the week, then that doesn't really square with your previous assertions that sugar isn't harmful and everyone else is making too much fuss about it.

How many threads would you like to own?

What's your problem jingl? Don't you like it that someone dares to disagree with your dogmatic postings? I'm getting a bit sick of you making snidy little remarks you're like one of those annoying little dogs that follow people around nipping at their heels.

So with apologies to NanKate I'll do just that and walk away from you and your inane and contradictory posts.

Love it ,anya!!

Oh for goodness sake! This is silly!

I try to be added sugar free for the five weekdays. Don't always succeed, but I try. I agree sugar should be reduced in our diets. I don't think it is necessary to cut out the occasional treat. Obviously, ill people may have to take stricter measures.

Can't be bothered to read any more posts with unpleasant tones to them, such as are now surfacing here. Lovely day and I am in a particularly beautiful part of the U.K.

Maybe I meant the picture of the dog with his tongue out????????????

Not you wit just jingl getting her camiknickers in a twist because the worm turned.

Meant wot

Anyone who can post a message comparing another poster to a dog, and putting up a picture suggesting peeing on her, is, in my opinion, beneath contempt.

Wot I didn't even read your post.

For goodness sake! Why can't we all be friends?? ???

But Miss! She started it!

Anyway enough.......I'll shake hands and apologise if you will.

PS I wasn't suggesting I pee on you but the situation that was developing!!

bangs head on desk

This is just an observation. I love biscuits, chocolate, cake etc ...... Due to my diet being quite severely restricted with dental problems, I bought a Nutribullet about a month ago. I can now benefit from ALL the vegetables and fruit which I was unable to eat before. Guess what? Now I find I cannot eat my earlier favourite biscuits and chocolate - they are just tooooo sweet. How great is that?

This thing about sugar being addictive... is it addictive full stop or is it more a case of "can be addictive"?

If it's the latter I think it's wrong to speak of it as if it were categorically addictive by saying, for instance: Sugar is addictive. I think 'can be' should always be inserted into that statement.

bags www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
'The evidence supports the hypothesis that rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity.'
So some evidence but the jury is still
out, I'd say.

"Rats can become sugar dependent" is not "Rats become..."

There's a big difference, scientifically.

I've no problem with the idea that sugar and obesity in humans probably is linked, not least because in many food, sugar replaced the fats we used to eat beofre obesity became an epidemic.

And because more food is so readily available.

It'll be a while before I start counting grams of it in my diet though, if ever.

^"Rats can become sugar dependent" is not "Rats become..."
There's a big difference, scientifically.^

Yes. That's what I was trying to say. There's a lot of suggestion around that sugar acts on reward centres in the brain, and acts in ways that are similar to the actions of substances that are accepted as addictive, but it seems mainly concentrated on pseudoscientific magazines.
The link above was the only one I could find seemed to be from a credible source.

I've started counting grams of sugar as an experiment. I've counted two trifles and three spoonsful of added sugar. It comes to about 55g, not great but far better than I thought (I've a very sweet tooth).

So: if that's all the sugar I'm eating (that's pretty standard for me), what the jeff are all these people eating who are really overdoing the sugar?

I am adapting to a reduced carb/sugar diet quite well and losing weight. However what I really miss in the occasional dessert with a bit of substance to it. I love all the yoghurts and fresh fruit but would die for something chewy. Any ideas ?

Nankate allrecipes.co.uk/recipe/6766/basic-flapjacks.aspx
This is a flapjack recipe which contains 148g sugar. (2 tablespoons syrup =24g sugar)

If you manage to cut it into 20 portions each portion will have only 7.4g of sugar, not including the raisins. You could substitute nuts and/or seeds if you were being really picky.

In the scheme of things that's not too bad

But..... shouldn't you expect to miss some things when you are on a diet? Isn't that the nature of the beast?

#bestrong

You can't have your cake and eat it! Well, not your cake as such....