> The unpleasant parts of a month without sugar are temporary, and they’re tolerable. Some of the benefits continue long after the month is over. If you try it and your experience is anything like mine, I predict that your new normal will feel healthier and no less enjoyable than the old.
This is the extent of the results. NONE of the benefits, expected or experienced are discussed!
The rest is just telling you what to avoid and what to eat. The sugar naturally occurring in fruit, vegetables and dairy are allowed. Author also claims that you can't eat things that have 0g sugar listed because that just means less than 0.5g. You have to read every ingredient for -ose, honey, sugar, agave, etc. That seems a bit ridiculous if you are allowing fructose from an apple (~19g).
Reduce sugar in favor of grain and calorie balance among fat, carb, protein with reduced total intake is generally good. Diets like these are replacing one extreme with another.
Given that the author is suggesting that interested people undertake this as a month long exercise, and only claims to have undertaken this exercise twice, it is not clear why you are characterizing this as an extreme diet.
What I've found is that restaurant food all tastes incredibly sweet. All of it. There has to be so much sugar they're putting in food, and I just used to be used to eating that much.
Getting a chai-type beverage, if they add sweetener at all, it's wayyyyyy too much. I've started requesting no sweetener in my chais, and that now tastes normal to me.
I still eat fruit, but no more than one piece a day. Even a whole apple often feels like a little too much sweet for me.
The biggest take-away I have from all this is just how easy it is to get accustomed to foods, one way or another.
The biggest benefit has been weight loss and having my energy throughout the day feel almost totally steady and even now. Even when I get hungry, it's a sensation I can mostly delay gratification of, where I used to get crazy and distracted from hunger.
I don't crave it at all any more, and my doc said I probably added ten years to my life just doing that. I also lost over 20 pounds the first month and with exercise I could probably convert another 10-20 to muscle and bone weight.
I also don't get "sick" as often, as in I've had only one chest cold since I started this diet, whereas in the past I'd have had two or three at least by now. Anecdotal, I know, but it's been a huge boost to my quality of life.
I do occasionally still have black coffee or with just half and half, but that is too much temptation to put "just one spoonful of sugar" in there, and I have to make myself stop.
It has also been difficult giving up cooking desserts; I love to bake and I also enjoy cooking Asian cuisine, which (depending on the dish) can be very sugar-dependent. There are a few fruit-based desserts that don't require much or any added sugar, but when you're diabetic even the natural sugars from fruit can be harmful.
I am convinced that a real change is a lot more realistic when it is part of a larger lifestyle change. Habits are hard to break one by one because they reinforce eachother.
I suggest that you collect all your bad habits together and break them all at once. Or, with the next change in your life (new city, new job, marriage, first child) also change your diet.
It sounds harder but I think it's easier. Baby waking you up three times in one night, and you won't care how food tastes anyway.
I think a big enough change triggers something in your mind that says "this is how life is now".
Another tip is that embarassment and disgust are powerful emotions, so use them. When I got married I was literally too embarrassed to keep my old diet. And if you think about it the right way, sugar everywhere is disgusting. It makes your mouth sticky causes rapid bacterial growth and bad breath.
My wife and I cook quite a lot at home, and tend to under-sweeten and under-salt things compared to the status quo, and my perception is that we're both much more sensitive to salt and sugar levels in foods we don't prepare as a result.
Sodium is essential to being healthy; the reason it's made out to be a big deal is due to how much processed food the average person eats. It's almost as though it's assumed that people are going to eat processed food regularly.
We're not anti-salt or anything, we just tend to use less of it than recipes call for, and the effects has been that we notice oversalting more in other foods.
For anyone who works out or is starting to its good to remember you lose salts while you sweat as well.
As a result of that, and some other dietary changes, I'm also 25 pounds lighter.
Today, almost all restaurant food tastes way too salty and sweet, with the worst offender being pizza. I've noticed that one by one, even the independent or local pizza places have added more and more sugar to the crust and sauce.
I had to switch to Granny Smith and similar. If you don't mind the acidity, they are a real treat :)
Abstaining from sugar really does help reset your preferences; give it a try.
(I made other subsequent changes and got down to 250; moving to SF meant walking more and I got down to 220, though I switched jobs to a South Bay tech company and have started creeping back up since it is far less walkable down there.)
It is fascinating how much sugar some foods have - if you imagine making them yourself and putting like two tablespoons of sugar into a cup... now that just sounds weird and somewhat disgusting. Some over-sugared foods I just can't eat. But it's not a big loss. For many foods there are substitutes that taste even better (at least once your brain is over the "good = sugar" mindset), others you can just do without. Nothing extreme here.
The issue with "processed sugars" is that they appear in forms which cause you to not necessarily get enough fiber with them, and in form factors that are very easy to overconsume, but biochemically, 19g of table sugar and a couple of Benefiber caps are going to do approximately the same thing as an apple. Being processed doesn't make it magically toxic.
People like to talk about "processed" sugars like it's the sugar itself that has transformed, when really the problem with processed sugars is that it's just the sugar, and it's too easy to consume too much of it.
Naturally occurring sugar is just as bad, but has some other ingredients deemed to have positive impact. The analogy here would be opposing the claim that smoking is bad for you with the statement that some cigarettes can contain menthol or eucalyptus, which are known to have soothing effects and pleasant odors, and therefore are "completely different".
But back to sugar. The usual pro-sugar argument with naturally occurring sugars involves vitamins and nutrients. Unless you have a severe case of vitamin deficiency, your body does not need extra supply of those vitamins, at least doesn't need them urgently enough to justify sugar as a delivery mechanism.
Nutrients can be obtained from zero-sugar green leafy vegetables - watercress and kale tend to be the bomb as far as nutrient load.
Also "naturally occurring" is a misnomer by itself - modern commercially available fruit has been bred to have longer shelf lives and higher contents of sugar to appeal to general public.
So indeed nothing stays natural after a touch of civilization.
In practice, I think the difference between naturally occurring sugar and added sugar is satiety: sugars that occur naturally are bundled with fibers, and fiber makes it more difficult to overeat. That's what's so dangerous about sugar soda (which really needs to be legally regulated).
Eating piles of sugar is stupid, but that doesn't mean I should be legally prevented from doing it.
I no longer miss sugary 'treats', and happily much on apples instead of chocolate bars as I used to.
I sleep better, feel better, concentrate better, control weight better, I'm more productive... the list goes on.
That isn't to say that your sugar-free experience isn't meaningful, significant, or impacts your life.
My point is that your sugar-free lifestyle results are indistinguishable from placebo. Or little green moon men, really.
Honestly, I think it's probably just easiest to limit carb intake overall. Don't bother with the nonsense about subtracting fiber and all that, just set your carbohydrate goals for the day and stay under that. Sugar-heavy foods tend to get naturally eliminated in such a routine because the calorie-to-satiation ratio sucks.
Yes, these are deceptive. You're typically getting all of the sugar, but none of the fiber along with it that slows digestion (along with other benefits). Eating an apple and drinking apple juice are very different in terms of sugar content and the resultant insulin spike.
That said, I doubt anyone has ever experienced negative health effects from eating too many apples.
Edit: wait, so you ate ~53 apples (googled average weight, came back at ~.15kg)? I call BS.
And consider that if one just eats 3 apples per hour, than in 16 hours that gives 48.
You turn into an apple.
At least, according to all nannies & parents.
As far as I understand, the fiber should still stay in the juice because I did nothing to take the fiber out of this mixture.
But even if the fiber stays intact you're going to drink and potentially overdose on a smoothie more easily than a while fruit.
It forces you to a lot more fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Plus it doesn't feel like an arbitrary division. Looking back, it seems weird to take fiber out of food. It makes things taste sweeter and extends their shelf lives, but at the cost of complexity of flavor, texture, and nutritional value.
Since avoiding foods with fiber removed, my diet has become more varied, fresh, cheaper, more delicious, and I eat more food. The biggest surprise was that stopping using olive oil, which I had allowed at first, felt natural and I don't miss it. As a result, I eat to stuffed almost every meal.
At 45, my ab definition started coming in after the change for the first time, despite my eating more food.
Your body needs lipids -- cell walls are made of them! An extremely low-fat diet increases cancer risk substantially. And some lipids are better than others. Polyunsaturated oils are easily oxidized, creating free radicals. Saturated animal fats -- well, this is debated, and there is some indication they may have been unfairly blamed for problems that are actually caused by sugar, but I still avoid them. Olive oil, being mostly monounsaturated, is the best.
I would be interested in the data behind your statement that low fat diets increase cancer risk. I have seen papers demonstrating the contrary.
I eat nuts in my oatmeal every day.
I make these stews a lot with what's in season through my farm share and from the local farmers market. Usually about 20 minutes preparation time for 6 or 7 meals. Guests are uniformly surprised at how delicious they are and how easy they are to cook.
I cooked with almost none of those ingredients before starting avoiding fiber-removed foods. Now I'm amazed at how sweet and juicy vegetables and fruit are.
Breakfast was oats, apple, chia seeds, nuts, apple, water.
Lunch was leftover stew made of: split pea, onion, cabbage, jalapeno, kohlrabi, a beet, water, nutritional yeast, carnival squash, salt.
Snack was a vegetable salad of kohlrabi, onion, apple, vinegar, nuts, salt, pepper.
Another snack was a persimmon and an apple.
I will accept absolute values, or a vector relative to your pre-no-fiber-removed-diet days.
My hunch is my gut had to adjust, or maybe the bacteria in it. I think problems people have is with the transition between eating habits, not the final situation.
Health is a side effect for my eating habits. Deliciousness is by far the biggest reason, followed by convenience, lower cost, getting to eat more, less pollution, and health.
I just love eating delicious foods. I've come to find taking out the fiber leaves things too sweet. Fruit became incredibly sweet after I got used to it and I love eating it. Now vegetables are tasting sweet. I didn't intend or expect to experience this change in tastes, but I'm glad it did.
It's a bit strange that food having energy is now seen as a bad thing.
How is that a downside? Deriving calories (and nutrients) from food is the entire purpose of eating.
And even though I'm vegetarian and accustomed to being the weird one as far as food as concerned, not eating any sugar in any form really is exceptionally isolating. Any diet will have you feeling left out, but man. Sugar is a bitch.
It is a hard diet to do though. I found that eating out was very tricky, and that shopping at the grocery store was also challenging. It required meal planning, and just thinking of most food in the grocery store as non-edible.
There are good documentaries, books, etc. on why sugar is so bad for us. I really enjoyed the documentary ["Fed Up"](http://fedupmovie.com).
Extreme diets (i.e., 'eliminate X completely') tend to fail because they're hard to sustain.
In the absolute sense, you're absolutely right. But in my experience sugar tends to stoke a desire for more, in which case the form calories take is a crucial factor for success.
(Caveats: I know what works for me but couldn't tell you how much of the effects of eating sugar are physiological vs. emotional, etc.)
However, I fell off due to emotional reasons. Personally, I have to be in a 100% sound frame of mind to stick to it - there's just so many carbs everywhere, it's easy to fall off.
But alcohol, it's hard. I like a beer or few to relax after work, but I think for me it became a habit. Cutting out alcohol at home was a neat compromise (allowing myself to indulge the couple of times a month I go out for programming group meetups) felt a bit like what I imagine giving up smoking would be like. It took me a couple of weeks to get used to not having a drink in my hand in the evening, and I didn't like it at all. Compounded by the fact that I don't drink soda, and rarely fruit juice (mostly water, coffee or tea).
However taking it a day at a time I did cut it out, and I became noticeably healthier. I started going to bed at a regular time, I felt more alert in the mornings. I think my work improved, I felt healthier in general, I lost weight and I felt like I had more energy.
I've 100% relapsed over Christmas, but I'm going to pick it up again in the new year.
The difference, for me, is that instead of prohibiting food - and thus, obsessing over what I can't have - I simply did specific goals and kept them up.
You can do the same thing with vegetables: To eat enough, you generally have to cut out other things, so the end result is a bonus. Sometimes it is hard at first, since you don't "like" certain things. This can be overcome with exposure and familiarity for many things, and expanded upon later on, even on things that failed previously.
Once you start looking at foods in this way - in terms of proteins, other nutrients (vegetables), and filler (carbs and fats) - it's easy to target foods high in protein and nutrients, and low in filler. This doesn't mean avoiding junk foods, but it gives you an excuse to not eat pizza crust, and means you'd target thin crust, or even opt for chicken strips.
My go-to for when I find myself eating out while on these diets (whole 30 and keto) is burgers with no bun, extra lettuce and other vegetables, and every sauce on the side.
The only thing that makes these diets work for me personally is that I have one of those tech jobs with free lunch every day and there are decent options. If I had to pre-plan and pack a lunch every day, it would be a lot harder. To my knowledge, nearly nobody (outside of tech) gets free, good-quality lunch supplied at work.
Only because, as you say, you "come from a family with diabetics". Not exactly the most common experience growing up (even if there are many diabetics, there are less that know it, and even fewer than do something about it -- statistics I've seen say there are about 9% diabetics, of which about 25% is undiagnosed).
So, I don't understand what you find "hard to understand". That most people don't share the same experience?
American foods are just way too sugary. I traveled to Japan a few years back and was amazed by how little sugar some of their candies have. After spending two weeks there, when I came back home I was a bit shocked at how overwhelming most foods felt.
I can't speak for any alleged health benefits, but my personal strategy is to regularly cut down on certain foods every few months. That gives you a chance to sorta reset your taste buds, so when you come back to a type of food it's almost as if you're tasting it for the first time. I don't know if it's just a placebo effect or if there's a scientific explanation behind it, but I find it enjoyable, so I'd suggest others give this sort of harmless experimenting a try.
It's a simple way to avoid sugar and flour in your diet, therefore removing a lot of carbohydrates and therefore calories. A few years ago I tried it (with the addition of no dairy, as that was how I remembered it), and I lost 30lbs in 3 months.
Of course, like any diet if, you don't permanently change your lifestyle you will gain the weight back, and as I one-by-one started back with the bread and sweet foods and snacks, it all came back.
The effect you describe may be more a sign that eating things the body isn't prepared for are disruptive, rather than the harmfulness of the particular avoided food. (Even where the avoided food actually is harmful.)
Hmm, I had the opposite. Cut sugar for ~2 months, lost 20 pounds, never felt better. Was doing a variation of the low-carb Atkins-style diet.
Had to stop it because I got gout from eating too much meat though, but looking to restart it with adjustments for that.
I wonder if tapering down sugar consumption gradually instead of abruptly quitting would lessen this effect by giving the brain time to adjust? It might be similar to how people need to taper down their dosage of Prozac rather than just stopping it.
> When I needed a midday treat, a Honeycrisp apple, a few Trader Joe’s apricots or a snack bar that fit the no-sugar saved me.
Why not just "apricots"? Why does it have to be Trader Joe's apricots?
Probably because the author doesn't have a Whole Foods nearby, and the kind of people that get to write for NYT always want to tell us where they shop their organic stuff.
Sriracha: why do so many people like it?
It's 20% sugar. No wonder.
Here's the label: http://joshuaspodek.com/why-sriracha-hot-sauce-tast
1) Most restaurant foods, even the savory section, have an undercurrent of sweetness that is almost overpowering
2) I cannot eat any commercial cakes/cookies even on very special occasions, the sweetness makes you gag
3) No more post lunch slump - this one was surprising to me
4) Birthdays/Anniversaries are awkward during the "food time"
5) No colas/juice/shakes/smoothies; yes to Coffee,tea,lime water with honey or just Water - I started to have spare change much more often so now i invest in the occasional top shelf vodka :)
6) Dropped about 6 Pounds in the first six months
7) Less jittery-ness thru the day
All-in-all positive effects with some social awkwardness
1) If present with an SO, say you are sharing theirs.
2) Take the proffered sugar, make eating-cadence motions with the spoon/fork but instead of eating, mash it a bit. After a few times, hard to tell at a glance whether or not someone has eaten it. Discreetly set down, walk away.
3) Or do the more advanced version, when you realize rarely does someone really observe and care that you eat a food, and being seen in the give-and-take transaction with you is far more socially significant: take, dab with utensil, discard.
4) Decline with a wry "doctor's orders". YMMV, might be accompanied by increased risk of one-sided conversation over health issues, especially if giver is elderly relation with lots of such.
Unrelated, but about a week ago I was shown a jar of honey where the beehive was next to a small patch of flowering garlic. It was bizarre - the jar smelled strongly of garlic, almost overpowering, but there was no taste of garlic in the honey itself. Curious.
Also, since I replaced sugar with caffein, I still get the jittery-ness thru the day.
Here is a comparison of EU vs. US labels:
- sodium vs. salt
- 'per serving' vs. per 100g (in the US candy is often specified as multiple servings per container, deflating the numbers)
- fiber included under carbohydrates
(granted, there are issues with EU labeling too, but I think it has some advantages)
On a tangent, here in Australia, goods in supermarkets now have to have their prices also listed in 'per 100g' (or per volume). It makes price comparison much easier, and no longer are you trying to figure out what the breakdown is for a 527ml bottle of Foo Cleaner against it's 483ml competitor.
"Eat all things in moderation" I think is good advice, but it's too vague for anyone to take it.
So we can expect at least a few more generations of bogus diet books before people will accept nutritionally balanced human chow, which is the true simple way to do it right. :)
Oh that's right, it's so simple that no one believes it works.
The problem, most scientists agree, is that exercise makes us want to eat. Many studies have shown that if people start a new exercise program, their bodies begin to pump out much higher levels of various hormones that increase appetite. This reaction seems to be most pronounced if someone starts a new, moderate, aerobic exercise routine. (There are hints in some studies that intense exercise, such as interval training, may dampen appetite. But the relevant studies have been few and small.)
Half the developed world it seems.
You will definitely feel a lot better if you avoid sugar and carbs, and probably lose weight too.
> Finding groceries that don't have added sugar is also tricky
Also easy to avoid: if it isn't fresh from a plant or animal, you probably shouldn't eat it. Or at least eat much less of it and be discerning about what's in it and where you buy it from.
You can generally assume that if something is refined, processed, or often even packaged, it likely has added junk you really should not be eating.
Buying fresh is not exactly easy because that means going to the grocery store every day or thereabouts. I'm not going to argue that buying and eating fresh food isn't better for you, but it is certainly not easier.
It takes some practice to find the foods that work for you that don't have added sugar. It does get easier, but I would not say it is an easy diet considering how much food you need to avoid.
>"I have done so in each of the last two years, and it has led to permanent changes in my eating habits. It wasn’t easy, but it was worth it."
But then also states:
>"There were certainly times when I didn’t enjoy the experience. I missed ice cream, chocolate squares, Chinese restaurants and cocktails. But I also knew that I’d get to enjoy them all again."
What happened to the permanent changes in easting habits mentioned in the first passage? Is this a "yo-yo diet" then?
I also found this puzzling:
>"I now know which brands of chicken stock, bacon, smoked salmon, mustard and hot sauce contain added sugar and which do not."
Why can't the same awareness be achieved by simply reading the nutritional summary posted on the back of all food items before putting them in your cart or basket while grocery shopping?
It can be, and I've done so, but I can see that some people may benefit from focussing on the issue intensely for a month.
I'm not trying to diminish anything the author said. I think eating healthier foods is a worthy goal. I only share my experience in case others, like me, find adhering to prescribed diets and digging through ingredient lists too difficult, and want something a bit easier.
I would have tried it sooner but it seemed so contrarian to traditional dieting.
It's nothing extraordinary. Or at least nothing as challenging as launching a startup. It's all about willpower and willing to do the extra work. I found only eating what you cook, and sticking to whole natural foods (un-processed) makes this extremely easy.
I didn't manage a total of three or four times. Those were social events: a wedding, a birthday, and during a trip to another another country.
In terms of benefits, you lose quickly a lot of weight, and perhaps a bit more energy during the day. Overall a very interesting experience. I would say thought that if you're looking for a healther lifestyle, committing to regular moderate or intense exercise has a better ROI than cutting sugar.
I'm a bit mystified how "Chinese restaurants" fits in to this list -- could someone explain? Did the author at some other point in time give up Chinese food for a month, or is he suggesting that Chinese food all has added sugar? (Personally, I can think of only a few Chinese dishes that typically have sugar added, and it's maybe a tablespoon at most for a dish that would serve 2-4 people.)
Anyway, it took me 27 years to realise I've been addicted to sugar the whole time. I dropped refined sugar from my diet last February, I'd say I'm quite strict here as I've ate sugar only two times in these 11 months (one traditional Christmas Eve dish and one for Easter). Maybe a few times more when I wasn't sure what I was eating (eating out).
My sugar problems became really obvious when I was super strict about my oral hygiene yet I was spending thousands of dollars yearly on dentists. I was getting a few cavities filled yearly for the last 10 years or so. It seemed normal to me but the red flag was a cavity between my incisors, it was tiny, I couldn't even see it but every time I ate something with refined sugar I felt this particular type of pain you got when you have a cavity in your teeth. I could barely feel it with any other food, but sugars - hell yea, it was just simply painful. And then I got scared and thinking "damn, I'm 27 and I've already had root canal treatment once - and now this?". I've been reading a lot about people who have super healthy teeth because they don't eat that much sugar (or no refined sugars at all) and somehow without sugar tooth decay is processing very slowly if at all.
During the last 11 months I've seen my dentist twice and looks like if I will keep sugar out of my diet I'd just have to replace my fillings every few years or so. No new cavities, no signs of teeth decay, I feel like a new man.
What's even better I'm reading ALL the product labels before I eat anything now and I'm generally MUCH better because I've dropped refined/palm oils too. I'm living in Poland and our food is dirt cheap and of superb quality, anyway it really opened my eyes in many cases, when I was for example looking for sausages and about 50% had sugar in them, when and why the heck we decided to put sugar in our meat?! :( Same goes for bread and so much processed food you'd be surprised.
(if you're planning of dropping sugar it won't be easy - the first 3 weeks were nightmare for me, but I got by eating sweets sweetened with sorbitol, aspartam etc. - after that it was just like a walk in the park - I don't even miss Nutella sandwiches I used to eat every morning - try oatmeal with nuts and honey or in the worst case - mascarpone sandwiches with some honey on top of it - delicious :D)
What's worth adding here is I generally have huge logical problem with the whole "acquired taste" thing, I mean if something tastes like crap (I'm referring to coffee, alcohol, marmite etc.) why would ANYONE want to acquire the taste? What's the point of it? When I don't like something I just simply try it once, maybe twice and then I'm like "no, thank you, it's gross".
I used to think I'm beginning to like coffee because I really liked coffee cakes or Kopikos (not sure if you have them in the US), but once you realise these things are 60-80% SUGAR (!) then it's not the coffee you like in it at all, you most likely just carve sugar.
Your taste buds and your palate gets used to certain food, so the food you think is delicious is largely impacted by your acquired taste.
You're really missing out a lot with food given your attitude to acquired taste. You don't get to not have acquired taste, everyone has it, it's just a function of the food you keep eating, usually to do with where you're from.
There's a definite plus in acquiring certain tastes, because it'll open up whole new worlds of food & drink for you that you can't believe you previously did without. Examples include: Spicy food, fermented food, dried beef/fish/whatever, heavily fried foods, sweet, savory, stinky cheeses etc. etc.
Some things you really can't just try once. One good example is spicy food (containing capsaicin). Where I grew up there was none of that at all, but as an adult I made a concerted effort to try to wean myself on it because there had to be something to it if so many people were eating it. Today spiciness is one of my favorite food attributes.
I would also say that it is easy to mistake strong flavors for 'tastes like crap'. A good cup of coffee is a 100% pleasant experience, there's no putting up with it tasting like crap or anything like that.
First I think there is a great deal of social pressure to like the local cuisine in addition to whatever family makes. I can't remember where, but I read something linking social pressure and children eating spicy foods (given the pain it can cause folks).
The other bit of this is that taste buds change as folks get older. It is completely possible that the nuances that turned you off some times ago refuse to show up.
Beyond that, I find it interesting to put in some effort to understand why people enjoy things that I don’t. Sometimes you end up liking them after all, sometimes not, but I’m not going to categorically dismiss something just because I had a couple of bad experiences with it.
Made me watch my processed foods, and especially sugar intake.
Still think balanced diet and exercise are a very good idea
My favorite example is a survey that asked people which one saved more money, turning the lights out an hour earlier every day, or switching to higher efficiency lights. The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong.
So, the same with sugar for many right now. Many think that they can get by with more "moderation" and skipping a desert.
Is it? Based on what timeframe and power cost? When I was last light bulb shopping it seemed to me not upgrading was more cost effective < 5 years at least.
60 watts x 24 hrs/day = 1440 watt hrs = 1.44 kwh/day, @ $.10/kwh = $.15 / day
$5/LED bulb / $.15/day = 33 days to pay off
Now, I also confess I have not looked into these much lately. I just find it interesting how so many of us assume that "moderation" is more effective than other factors. Even when seeing the difference in clear numbers (60 to 14) indicates a huge gulf that moderation would have to overcome.
We have a similar problem at our house, where I've now calibrated the other direction. Rather than be concerned about keeping a window closed, I'm more interested in a better heating/cooling system.
Edit: Forgot my point at the top. Converting from energy costs to actual dollars, it can be seen that the cost of early CFL/LED lightbulbs was the dominate factor.
Every LED light bulb manufacturer seems to use the "lasts for 25 years" (or whatever) marketing approach - that completely fails on me, my immediate reaction is: "sure, but what am I paying for that?", and my reaction was strong enough that it even prevented me from doing the math it would seem.
At the end of the day I ended up buying some LED's to try them, and I liked the quality enough that I went and bought a whole bunch more, and will 100% do all future replacements.
It's interesting, if LED's truly last as long as advertised, what's the long term business model?
My hunch is they are mainly banking on upgrades to technology driving new purchases. Consider, your computer will probably last longer than you will keep using it. Difference is computer manufacturers don't bother with advertising how long they could last.
Also, I should confess I don't know where I was on the original survey. I probably had the wrong intuition, but seeing the question asked would tip me to it being wrong. I can't remember my answer at the time. :(
Finally, my guess on why they advertise the long life in stores may be because they are keying off emotions attached to home ownership. Home owners like to think of their house lasting a long time. So, home stores like anything that strengthens that.
Here is probably what happened to advertise fat as bad in the first place:
The first link I can't argue with, the second one maybe.
We do need balanced diets, but, natural balanced diets. Throwing pure sugar into it, isn't making it balanced of any sort.
You shouldn't post his videos as the gospel truth.
If I go to wikipedia, I get
And I see nothing about controversies there.
If I google about the term for a bit, I see no scientific rebuttals of his points in that video.
I mean, it's biochemistry, if he's that much wrong (he seems quite educated) then some of his science is also wrong; would you be so kind to provide few links of rebuttals to his research papers or whatever you are reading.
I would greatly appreciate if you stick to actual scientific papers, as I really don't have time to get dragged into the whole USA 'omg hes from <political party> and that's why he states his pro [trump/hilary] views.
TLDR: I honestly don't know about any controversies streaming from that video, but would like to read the scientific rebutals, if any, with respect to that guy's work.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad... (see the section: Why is it a problem to have too much sugar?)
However, I get your point. I think the conflicting (and often industry driven) public health messages we've gotten at least over my lifetime and probably for decades before have made people dubious of new health/health harm claims around whole classes of foods. For me, I like to follow Michael Pollans advice of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
The diet itself seems almost irrelevant. Just the simple act of paying attention to what you eat (counting calories is an excellent starting point) will help more than anything, as you'll more easily recognize poor trends in your food choices, and the awareness will encourage you to diversify your diet.
The Whole 30 lets you have as much fat, meat and calories as you want. I plowed through eggs, homemade mayo, meat, and other calorie dense food. I'm skinny enough that I don't have much weight to lose. Even so, I dropped ten pounds effortlessly.
I don't know if this generalizes to other people and their physiques, but it was enough to convince me that sugar/simple carbs really do correlate more directly to my waistline than just counting calories does. I'm sure what the right metric to pay attention to is. My hunch is that it's glycemic load.
Either way, I cut down on my sugar and carbs since then, and I've lost of a lot of the middle-aged Dad belly I was starting to develop. I don't count calories at all. It seems to work for me.
Fats are a lot more satiating than carbohydrates (ie, sugars) - I could easily put away 4000 calories of goldfish crackers in an evening, but I would be insanely full, uncomfortable, and possibly even sick if I tried to eat 4000 calories of proteins or fats. My go-to craving-killer snack is peanuts - they're high calorie on the label, but a handful of them takes the edge off my craving in a way that chips and crackers and candy don't.
I'm claiming that the set of dietary rules I chose which are based around limiting sugar and simple carbs have an end result of some weight loss. Whether that's a direct property of lowering sugar, or an emergent property caused by that is a good question, but one I don't need to have an answer for if the rules happen to work.
For what it's worth, my rules are roughly:
* No sweets unless I am socializing or it is a dessert I prepared from scratch. "Sweet" means roughly candy or dessert.
* No beer unless socializing.
* Minimize carb-heavy snacks like crackers and chips.
The last rule is fuzzier than I'd like, but I'm still dialing it in.
These rules may seem a little arbitrary, but they work for me and I find they do a good job of improving my overall diet without subjecting me to the real annoyances of rigid diets that make you do things like ask a waiter to bring you a burger without a bun, or not eat a curry that has a teaspoon of sugar in it.
Oh, I'm definitely not trying to do that. I try to have a good amount of fruits, vegetables, nuts and dairy. Basically your classic "balanced" diet, just lower on sugar and highly-processed grains.
Now you're talking crazy shit, son, how could that ever work?! /s
Despite all of this, take it from me: The benefits are overrated
Ironically and amusingly enough, I was my happiest (and seemingly healthier) when I was a little boy running around all day outside eating candy or chocolate to my hearts content.
That's a dangerous thought that everyone has. You were indeed happier and healthier, because you had a new body that could heal more faster, and your metabolism was through the roof.
After 25, wear and tear starts to become noticeable, metabolism slows down, physical damage heals slower, pain lingers for way longer, you get less endorphins.
But these days everything is over-sweetened, fucking bread is sweet as hell for some reason. So cutting down on sugar is more than just not putting it in your tea/coffee and not eating cookies.
Food falls into 3 main categories: Carbs, proteins, fats.
Carbs fall into 2 categories, Sugars and Starches (which are just a chain of sugar molecules).
Yes, it is possible to survive for awhile on just protein and fat, but NO ONE should be doing that. Sugar is necessary and good for you.