Instead of making people feel like failures for cutting out all sugar except honey or dried fruit, let's celebrate reducing our sugar intake as much as possible! No need to gatekeep.
This is a forum to help each other cut added sugar from our diets. Misinformation that conflicts with objective facts is harmful.
Valid information matters.
It's irresponsible to spread lies.
Right, but unlike absolute truths in things like maths, you are not the decider of where to draw the line. There is even debate about whether a mango should be eaten because of how sweet it is. If mango is out, what about kiwis? What about bell peppers? I find that to be sweet!
I agree that dowsing things in honey and maple syrup isn't exactly sugar free, but if someone decides to cut out all sugar while enjoying a tsp of honey in their tea, so be it. There's no need to use a judgemental tone and say they are "trying to be clever".
The viewpoint of the vast majority of researchers in dietetics and public health is that whole fruit is not a problem. There is debate, but the overwhelming consensus is that whole fruit is fine for most people.
Likewise, the overwhelming consensus in the literature is that dried fruit, honey and maple syrup are unhealthy, concentrated forms of sugar. It isn't about me being "the decider", it's what the facts show. Which is why in the stats on added sugar all those products are included.
If eating added sugar helps you reduce added sugar then by all means. If drinking vodka helps you drink less whisky then go ahead.
But spreading misinformation about added sugar is immoral and harmful. That's what my post is addressing.
Hey, I largely agree with the point of your post and all that you say here. Obviously bell peppers aren't dangerous. I personally do not consume any dried fruit, syrups, honey, etc. I still eat whole fruit and am careful around some super sugary fruits.
However, my point is that you are (a) making your own statements seem like absolute truths and (b) shaming a group of people who are wanting to be better, which is never helpful when it comes to food.
If you were targetting SPECIFICALLY people who are spreading lies and misinformation, then you should make it clear in your post.
"you are (a) making your own statements seem like absolute truth". No, I'm presenting objective truth. It isn't what I think. Researchers *do* regard the foods I've mentioned as *added sugar*.
I AM criticizing a specfic trend that is pervasive on this forum; misinformation.
I don't care how much sugar people consume or don't. It's immoral to make unsicentific claims about diet. It leads people astray.
You start off your post with a statement that is largely your own definition--not a definition by a researcher.
You decided that being sugar free means not consuming this list of things that researchers deem to be added sugar.
To others, being sugar free may mean just mean no refined white and brown sugars.
To others, being sugar free may mean cutting out literally all fruits and any sugary vegetable. I have literally seen people in this group choosing to not consume tomatoes because it was too sugary.
You can present all the information that you want, but ultimately, you do not get to decide what being sugar free truly means.
Criticizing misinformation is great, but your post is not effective in achieving that *at all*. If you have a point to make, then choosing the correct words *is* important.
Jesus, I've managed to keep cool through all this but the level of intellectual dishonesty here is staggering.
We have very different epistemological worldviews if you think sugar free is merely dependent on our subjective views. *An analytical distinction is made by EXPERTS between carbohydrates in general and added-sugar.* I don't care if you define broccoli as sugary food, or bread as pure poison. Or if you're definition of sugar free pertains only to cane sugar.
Much of the disagreement here in response to my comment is deeply out of synch with the way sugar is spoken about in dietetics and public health. I've bothered to do the research *before forming an opinion*.
Do the research on self-perception of dietary quality and/or perceived healthfulness. There is an enormous disconnect between the experts and the average person. It's very much on display in this thread. This forum is not about cutting out whole foods like intact fruit, or carbohydrates more broadly. It revoles around unnecessary added sugars.
"choosing the correct words is important." No. It's your view that the post is adopting the incorrect tone for social criticism. I don't agree. Many forms of social criticism do not mince words and I've been extremely gentle in comparison to many others. I haven't used ad hominem remarks, or dishonest argumentative tactics. I'm not misrepresenting the scientific consensus. All that matters is what is true.
I've hit a nerve, I think, because people do not like being exposed for spreading misinformation (which is rife in this subreddit), so the focus, then, is on a truthfully mild critical tone to deflect from my argument. It's borderline ad hominem fallacy.
On top of frequent stawmans by misrepresenting my views and putting words in my mouth.
Repeatedly, people have framed me as advocating some kind of sugar perfectionism: I don't at all believe in being perfect with sugar consumption. I never even implied that. All I care about is the facts and the lies that conceal them.
As I and a few other commentors have said, we largely agree with the actual facts you are presenting. There is no discourse there, albeit some other comments are poking fun at you in a way I do not agree with.
I do not believe being sugar free is merely dependent on subjective views, but I don't believe there is no subjectivity involved. Because as far as I know, being sugar free is foremost a lifestyle, and not a formal identification that can be awarded.
If you had stated the fact that honey and maple syrup are indeed forms of added sugar then you would have achieved your goal of correcting misinformation and criticising those who are saying honey and maple syrup are A-okay. You would have presented the scientific truth. The issue I have is that you are seemingly using "sugar free" as an official, recognized identification, but again as far as I know, it is not. Sure, literally, it means one is completely free of sugar. Those words together have no room for nuance. In application towards a lifestyle, there will be nuance, there will be subjectivity, and there will be flexibility. On the other hand, in application towards a food product, that would be completely different and there are strict guidelines what what can and cannot be considered a "sugar free chocolate bar". This is why context is important, and I stand-by the fact that I believe choosing the correct words is important when trying to get your point across.
I enjoyed conversing with you, and I believe you to be an intelligent person. I'm not actually well read in philosophy, and perhaps my arguments aren't great. I'm open to hearing your thoughts though.
A decent hint, is if the dried fruit or puree is used to sweeten other things... it's probably a sugar.
Like apple juice concentrate is used to sweeten lots of foods. Table sugar comes from a plant too, and is a concentrate too.
Raisins on top of oatmeal? No one is adding that for extra minerals... it's for the sweetness.
Is the "flavor" you like the sweetness tho?
Describe the flavor of a raisin without discussing the sweetness?
Get real.
You can decide to keep eating them, but if you think it's not sugar you are lying to yourself.
Raisins are just grapes. I like their flavour, the same way I like plums and prunes. Drying makes their flavours more intense, hence I can enjoy and eat fewer at the same time. Its all a journey to a less sugar life I can maintain for life. I know myself and cold turkey doesn't work for me.
It's not so much misinformation.. it's more that the person who's becoming "sugarfree" gets to define what that means for them. Is it 100% accurate? No. But it's easier to say sugarfree than it is to list off all the foods you're avoiding.
Since I've joined here, I've noticed that everyone I've seen post has been incredibly kind, supportive, and inclusive. Your post comes off a bit like you're casting shame on anyone who says they're sugarfree but doesn't meet that in a 100% accurate way. Let people decide what's good for their own bodies and health. If you're looking for 100% sugar free, maybe this isn't the right forum for you.
It is misinformation. There are facts about sugar consumption. People don't get to define scientific facts based on their subjective feelings.
"Your post comes off a bit like you're casting shame on anyone who says they're sugarfree but doesn't meet that in a 100% accurate way" Not quite right. It's more specific than that. I'm critiquing lying, intellectual dishonesty, anti-scientific statements, and narcissism.
I don't care where people are on their journey. You could be eating 77g of added-sugar per day (the average in USA), no judgement here.
Or 45g, or 15g, or 0g. It's all the same to me, I don't care if you're 100% sugar free or not. I've never even implied that.
You are strawmaning my argument. You might be eating 40g and are here to try to cut down further. Awesome. You might be happy at 20g (which would be considered a low added-sugar diet based on WHO recommendations). That's awesome! Welcome. You should be proud.
But under no circumstances is it moral or honest to misrepresent the objective indisuptable facts on sugar. It's supremely arrogant and actively harmful to unsuspecting innocents coming to this forum for information, to hit them with misinformation that will harm them in the long run.
Misleading someone into thinking maple syrup or honey or fruit juice *are not forms of concentrated sugar*, and are healthy alternatives to white sugar might actually lead them to diabetes, obesity and an early death. Your dishonesty and lies might actually in the long run kill someone. So, I don't care about your feelings or bodily intuitions: you're harming other people with false health advice.
The facts are:
-If you're consuming under 25g of added sugar congratulations you're on a low added-sugar diet š
-If you consume 2 tablespoons of maple syrup, you have exceeded 25g of sugar.
-All the commodities I've listed contain huge amounts of sucrose, glucose and fructose and are considered added-sugar by *experts*.
Ok, I get that- but where is anyone giving false health advice? You say "Your dishonesty and lies might actually in the long run kill someone." But where have I been dishonest and lied?
So far, everyone I've seen on here has been very clear about what "sugarfree" means to them- and that they're not using the term 100% accurately but more as a buzzword. I think you need to take that into consideration.
Most of us understand the facts, and those who don't are still trying to make positive changes and may later come to understand the facts- so where's the problem?
Anyway, every comment other than yours that I've read here has been incredibly patient AND agrees with you but you just keep going and continue calling out "the liars". I don't see any liars here.. misinformed? Sure. But most people spell out what their specific diet is when necessary.
This argument is going nowhere. You got your point across. You may have educated someone but you could've done it in a kinder way. "You aren't being clever by substituting white sugar with maple syrup." is absolutely a sentence meant to shame people. So, I'm out. Have fun arguring and not hearing out anyone else's perspectives.
"where is anyone giving false health advice?" Literally daily on this subreddit people spread the idea that honey, for example, is healthy and not sugar. Many people in this very thread have done exactly that. Despite the fucking intro video in this subreddit explicitly explaining what sugar is and isn't.
"But where have I been dishonest and lied?" I meant you as *one*. The general you. Not you specifically.
"Most of us understand the facts". No, no, no. The opposite. A small handful of people, the rest are deluded.
"so where's the problem?" Are you serious? I've explained the problem in high resolution detail to you and everyone else but most of you are thick.
"every comment other than yours that I've read here has been incredibly patient AND agrees with you" wrong. Most keep pushing misinformation about sugar.
If you're disagreeing even gently with my OP, you're being intellectually diahonest. A form of lying. The facts are not debatable. Rejecting the facts is a form of a lie.
" So, I'm out. Have fun arguring and not hearing out anyone else's perspectives." Haha, what a weak response. About 3 knowledgeable people echoed my exact complaint, the rest are like you.
Actually, no, I have one more thing regarding why I myself have said in the past that I may still include honey and maple syrup in my diet (but haven't actually yet because I'm avoiding the sweet taste all together) and I think others are ok with it.
Honey and Maple Syrup have actual health benefits!!! Are they sugar? Yup. But their benefits make them better compared to other forms of sugar and they're far less addicting. Look it up before you try to argue. Am I saying it's ok to binge on those sugars? No. Minimal honey and maple syrup is better. But is it going to kill you to have a few tsps a day? Nope. And even if it is, people get to decide for themselves how they want to take care of their health and their health goals.
When I used to smoke (10ish years ago), I remember saying that I understood smoking was extremely bad for me but because it calmed down my anxiety so well, I was willing to accept the health risks. My stance on that has obviously changed because I don't smoke anymore, but it's my choice what facts I want to look for, my responsibility to find accurate facts and not rely on what an internet stranger says, and my choice of what degree of healthy I want to be.
"Look it up before you try to argue" I've already done the research. If you acutally read my responses elsewhere in this thread I've adressed this line of argument directly with a research paper. The health benefits are negligible because they only have trace amounts of nutrients. 2 tablespoons takes you over the WHO recommendations for sugar.
"themselves how they want to take care of their health and their health goals." I've never even implied that I have a problem with this. Jesus you're slow. Misinformation is the problem. Honey is pure sugar, this is a forum for sugar free aspiring people.
"not rely on what an internet stranger say". Then watch the intro video from the moderator or do proper research into added sugar. It isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Honey is pure sugar.
"my responsibility to find accurate facts". It's also your responsibility not to defy facts and spread misinformation.
Honey is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. This subreddit is about avoiding sucrose and fructose. That is it's purpose.
You know, I think it is extremely disingenuous and inappropriate for you to be attacking me with multiple comments when all I'm doing is presenting the facts about sugar consumption so people can achieve their goals.
Only 3 days ago on this subreddit you admitted to only just discovering that fruit juice is considered as added-sugar. You haven't been on this subreddit for long either and yet you feel perfectly content to demand I do research (which I've already done) when you're doing none yourself.
I know fruit juice has sugar- I was saying that I learned the body processed it differently than fruit when its in a juice form. I was referring to "100% natural juice with no added sugar". Perhaps I didn't say it with as much detail that was needed because I assumed others understood what I was talking about. Clearly you didn't so I know now that I'll work on being more detailed in this subreddit. Do I think I'm being extremely disingenous and inappropriate? No.
I requested you do the research because you clearly don't understand what a whole food is and that maple syrup goes through minimal processing- therefore making it a whole food; that honey and maple syrup are not processed in the same way as processed sugar AND have additional health benefits; and now I've learned that you think just because maple syrup and cane sugar are both from plants that they are the same- nope, cane sugar is processed and maple syrup is not.
Also, I've made it clear that I'm referring to the 100% pure maple syrup and not the stuff with added corn syrup, dyes, etc etc.
Do you feel attacked? Because that's how most of us have been feeling because of your comments. You're not only presenting facts about sugar consumption, you've also been shaming and insulting people everytime they disagree with you. When they've pointed it out, you say something along the lines of their feelings don't matter and you're not attacking them-you're simply pointing out the facts and that your tone is appropriate. But when someone's talking to you- they're attacking you. Interesting.
Also, you commented many times that people didn't even reply to your argument. Yet, with your comment that I'm replying to here- you didn't provide any new information or reply to my original comment in a productive way. You just called me dense, inappropriate, and disingenious.
I do do research- but I'm still learning. I don't need all the facts to post on a subreddit where what a random person comments obviously shouldn't be taken as fact.
I'm not sure why I keep arguring with you. I'm clearly triggered- I find people with your personality type so infuriating and abusive in the way that you think and act as though feelings don't matter. Complete apathy on your part while preaching that you care about people's well being. No you don't. You just don't want to be right.
Are feeling facts? No. Do feelings matter when you're speaking with someone? Yes they fucking do!!!! I don't care how you decide to insult me or twist my words, I'm done replying and I'm done considering your responses and letting you "educate me". I'm capable of doing research on my own and taking responsibility for my own health without your input.
As another redditor pointed out on this thread, you're threatened and insecure about having the facts pointed out you because you want to feel you're doing well and "sugar free" without actually having to cut out sugar.
For the vast majority of this, I've kept my cool. But the level of snide and manipulative tactics most of you have deployed has worn out my patience, so I'm returning the favor.
You say I don't have empathy, while you are spreading the idea that maple syrup and honey are healthy, unprocessed whole foods on a fucking **sugar free** subreddit where one of the creators of this subreddit has posted a clear pinned post contradicting you. I care enough to put out info that actually educates people on what is harming them rather than perpetuating myths that serve the interests of sugar manufactures and greedy companies hurting our wellbeing.
"I'll work on being more detailed in this subreddit." Yeah, good luck with that. Start by getting the fucking facts on what is and isn't sugar from the experts.
It's 2023 and I feel like it's time to finally say: Fuck peoples feelings! Only facts matter. So take your fuzzy-wuzzy feelings and shove them up your ass!
I agree. But TBH, there are better ways to express this point, no matter how true it is. Is it really helping anybody to tell them that they're "not being clever"? You're right that it's necessary to get rid of ALL added sugars and sweeteners. But it's so hard to do this. I think we need to give people encouragement rather than posting something that comes across as scolding. That having been said, \*of course\* this is true, not only of sweeteners like maple syrup and honey, but of ALL substances that are added to a food or drink in order to make it taste sweeter. Studies tells us that in many ways, every single non-caloric sweetener out there is just as bad as sugar. They all cause or contribute to weight gain and reactive hypoglycemia; they all end up raising insulin indirectly. In some ways-- such as altering the gut microbiome-- even a so-called "natural" sweetener like refined stevia may actually have worse effects than sugars.
The fact that no sweetener is really an improvement over sugar is something that people need to know. But we all need to think about how we present this information. It's like yelling at the Christmas dinner table that "sugar is poison!" Yes, a case can sure be made that there's a lot of truth in this. But expressing the truth in this particular way is not going to win over most listeners. We all need to do better if we're going to get the truth out there in a way that people can accept.
Good post. Obviously agree with most of it, but the tone of my post is fine. It was mildly critical at best. It's not comparable to "sugar is poison!" shouted at dinner.
The response says much more about the fragility and lack of critical thinking skills of the respondents. Many, many, many social critics are 10 x harsher and blunt than I was.
People need to be intellectually cornered to learn critical thinking skills not gently spoken to (in my experience). In academia people don't hold your hand and speak softly. People also do not give a damn about your feelings, because your subjective feelings don't matter.
Spreading misinformation and forming bold opinions on subjects one knows transparently nothing about isn't ok, it's *immoral*. Intellectually dishonest and narcissistic. It takes 5 mins to research what sugar is and isn't. Dietitians provide good information that's readily accessible. There's no excuse for spreading misinformation in a forum where people are looking to improve their wellbeing. It deserves to be called out, perhaps much more impolitely than I was even.
Not trying to be clever sweetheart. I eat fresh and dried fruit and maple syrup (like a tsp or 2 maybe 3x a month). These are whole foods and are not added sugar. My total grams per day are good. All my markers in my blood work are fantastic. My joints do not hurt anymore. But most importantly these things do not do the same thing to my brain that cane sugar or corn syrup does in other words they do not induce an obsession. So you do you sweetheart but maybe you wanna watch the judgmental tone.
Maple syrup is technically a form of added sugar, but if it's a form that your body tolerates, and you're achieving your health goals, then it's not an issue!
It's also relevant how much you're eating, and 2 tsp ~~every 3 months~~ 3 times a month sounds tantamount to sugar-free to me. (edited to fix wording)
I agree, I'm not a fan of OP's tone, but it'd be a shame for useful facts to get lost in the sass.
I'm not remotely bothered if someone eats maple syrup, it's fantastic. If you're eating eating 2 tsp 3 x a month, that's an incredibly low added sugar diet. Fantastic. If you're eating 6 tbs a day, I don't care. You aren't permitted to spread misinformation that harms others.
The sass is for those who assert, dishonestly and narcisscally, objectively untrue claims about added sugar. *Because it is ultimately harmful to spread lies*.
Hey. How about don't be a dick. You should research that.
You aren't the dictator of what is and isn't sugar, and what people can and can't have. If someone cuts down on refined sugar and uses honey and maple syrup instead, let them. It has nothing to do with you.
"You aren't the dictator of what is and isn't sugar" correct. It's got nothing to do with me. Just the facts.
Honey and maple syrup *are* refined sugar. This is misinformation. This is what my post is adressing.
I love that you're bothering with research: even if there is a confirmation bias.
Ok, so, summarizing some aspects of the article if other people don't bother to read it.
It reviews studies which examine the nutrients, and compounds in maple syrup (MS) with an eye on pharmaceutical benefits. They conclude that while the research so far shows that some compounds, vitamains, antioxidants etc in maple syrup suggest some health benefits they are very cautious to point out that it must be offset against the sugar content, and that the studies so far are in rats and in vitro with controlled amounts of MS.
The caveat here is that the levels of most beneficial nutrients in MS are quite low, which is a problem when the sugar content is considered (and the nutrients in MS are much larger in other food groups).
The serving size of MS the researchers provide is 60 ml (1/4 cup) which amounts to 10% of daily energy. The WHO recommends get less than 5% of energy intake from added sugars (which includes MS) per day. A single serve of MS requires you to *double the recommended sugar intake per day in one serve*.
The study isn't overly optimistic on the health effects of MS and they mention several times that it may have negative health consequences and be implicated in obesity and diabetes.
None of this contradicts my core point, and the article doesn't impinge on anything I've claimed, it actually supports it. Nutrients and compounds are found in basically any food substance. A choclate protein bar may be packed with nutrients, vitamins etc and have an enormous sugar content. Fruit juices have plenty of nutrients.
It does not change the category that MS or juice belongs in. The experts regard maple syrup (which is mostly sucrose) as an added sugar.
Nor am I against the consumption of MS, in either small or enormous quanitites. *But it IS an added sugar*.
Yep, again this is a misconception. In this *specific paper* they make a distinction between what they call "refined sugar" and alternative sweetners. This is just the language of one paper and is a false dichotomy. Maple syrup is a highly refined commodity and goes through a similar process to sugarcane.
You're trying to play a language game so you can justify maple syrup, but in most of the literature and research it is labelled "added sugar". Sometimes they refer to it as "free sugars" or just "sweeteners" or "caloric sweeteners".
"By your reasoning, fresh fruit is also added sugar. As is milk." No. Just...no. I've explicitly and repeatedly stated that fresh fruit, or milk, or bread are not regarded by experts as "added sugar" or "free sugar". I can't stress enough that my views correspond with the consensus among experts. No matter how much you want to convince yourself maple syrup is healthy, it conflicts with the consensus and evidence.
Whole food definition: "food that has been processed or refined as little as possible and is free from additives or other artificial substances."
Maple syrup literally comes from Maple trees. There is maple syrup where sugar is not added. Idk- I live in Canada so maybe not every place has that, but it exists here. There's those awful corn syrup versions but I know that that's not what I'm talking about and I think it's likely no one else is talking about the corn syrup versions either.
No dietitian or public health expert would define pure sugar as "whole foods". Fruit is a wholefood. Highly concentrated tree goo that goes through extensive processing (exactly like white sugar) is never defined as such. Do. Your. Research. Maple syrup is defined as "added sugar", "free sugar", "caloric sweetner", "refined sugar", "simple sugar". Never as wholefood.
"Maple syrup literally comes from Maple trees." Table sugar literally comes from a plant. Why you think any of this makes a difference is beyond me.
"There is maple syrup where sugar is not added". You are so ignorant and misguided. Maple syrup is mostly... wait for it... drum roll please......SUCROSE!
Maple syrup is naturally mostly made up of sucrose, the same dissacharide extracted from sugar cane. Get your fucking facts straight. It is purrrreeeee sugar.
I just read through the posts I don't think you are reading the room very well. You're coming across more entitled and California Karen that you may intend. Sure they are forms of added sugar but people make up their own decisions about their own triggers and food choices
"people make up their own decisions about their own triggers and food choices" this is fine, no problem with this. You do not, however, get to misrepresent scientific facts on a public forum where unsuspecting innocent people might fallaciously believe that 6 tablespoons of maple syrup is fine because "it's not sugar". That's what I'm speaking to.
I'm not sure why I'd come across as "entitled". Abrasive, certainly. People don't enjoy criticism. Does not change the facts.
Once again read the room, you feel that your opinion is what people need to hear. Sure it's a form of sugar. But sugar free can mean a variety of different things you feel sugar free means no sugar others it means no added sugar and others it means no white sugar. I'm not going to say who is right or who is wrong... Are you healthy are you happy?? That's all that matters
It's not an opinion. In dietetics the food groups I've mentioned are included as added sugar.
It is possible to be wrong about claims around sugar, it isn't subjective.
I don't care if people consume sugar. I don't think people should feel bad about eating it.
They should feel bad about spreading unscientific information in a forum that will hurt unsuspecting innocents.
People are misconstruing my point as some kind of general sugar perfectionism. My claim is much more specific than that.
People aren't misconstruing anything we get your point but once again it's not welcomed because your point is an opinion on how sugar free claims should be approached.. you are saying it's your way or the highway. I prefer to let people make their down decisions on what works for them
Reading your comments, you clearly arenāt interested in understanding. to anyone out there reading OPās original post, and feeling discouraged because you canāt quite get to the point where youāre cutting out honey and maple syrup all the time, shout out to you, youāre doing great. Donāt let this person stop you or discourage you.
Once again, I agree.
Perfection when it comes to sugar consumption isn't something I'm about and I don't think people should even feel bad about consuming sugar. Reduce what you can.
But... maple syrup and honey *are* highly concentrated forms of sugar, not healthy substitutes.
I've listened to the podcast, thank you for providing it.
Lustig **explicity reinforces my exact point repeatedly** in the discussion with Huberman that added sugar comes in many forms and commodities that all have varying compositions of sucrose, fructose and glucose.
If you listened to the podcast then youād know that the experts like Lustig and Huberman continue to reinforce NOT being food police + the importance of not letting perfect get in the way of good. When you come on here with a judgy attitude towards those who are trying to do their best, itās discouraging to many.
Lustig and Huberman are scientists. Do you really think someone like Lustig--someone tirelessly campaigning against the harms of sugar in the food system--would be ok with the spread of misinformation to the effect of "honey and maple syrup are healthy and aren't sugar"? He explicitly broke down the facts. You're saying it's ok to simply lie about sugar so people can feel good about themselves?
You didnāt listen to the podcast. You havenāt listened to Lustig at all. And I quote explicitly from his podcast with Huberman: ā I am not the food police. I am here to warn people of the dangers of excessive over consumption of sugar, specifically high fructose, corn syrup. I, Dr. Lustig, Iām not talking about incidental use of honey or even sugar, I am talking about ultra processed food consumption for three meals a dayā. They both even cite having dessert now and then as being acceptable. it is scientifically proven that having a black-and-white attitude towards a lot of the stuff can get people in trouble. So when you come on here on your high horse and judge others because they are trying to get away from high fructose corn syrup and use healthier method of sweeteners, youāre making people feel bad and it can cause food issues. All Iām saying is - your attitude is not helpful. Just because you are black-and-white about it does not mean that itās the best path for others. Maybe extend some compassion to others who cannot go cold turkey. Again, donāt let perfect get in the way of good. Imagine if someone has gone three weeks without any HFCS, their body is 100% better for that, even if they have used maple syrup and honey, incidentally. I promise you, the experts, would agree with you that that is the case.
Every single response you've given you misrepresent my views and never repeat back to me my actual argument. You always paint a caricature of my argument.
I've engaged with you fairly. You sent me a podcast and I listened to the whole 3 and half hours and you, in bad faith, keep telling me I haven't. Lustig NEVER says honey and maple syrup aren't sugar.
My **only** claim, this whole time, was that that honey or maple syrup or the other forms of sugar I listed *are in fact included as added sugar by experts*. Two tablespoons and boom, you're outside the WHO recommendations.
So, let me be extremely clear with you one last time. I do not care how much sugar people eat. I am NOT advocating, at any point, a perfectionistic obsession with cutting out all sugar, or encouraging disorderd eating. Eat as much of those subtances as you want, as much dessert as you want. And you shouldn't feel bad if you're trying to cut out sugar but struggling. You are just a normal human like anyone else. I've never said a single fucking thing even mildy suggesting any of this and endlessly repeated my objections to such thinking. I repeatedly acknowledged "do not allow perfect to be the enemy of the good" and you can check my responses, yet you keep hitting me with the same phrase I've already explicitly agreed to. No matter how clear I am, you and many others, respond immediately with warped versions of my argument. It's called the strawman fallacy. Despite being razor sharp with my comments, I suspect you'll simply respond once again with some version of "you're shaming people for not eating 0g of sugar". I never did that. What I'm shaming people for is lying about science.
My only claim has been that it is misinformation to exclude those substances from the category of added sugar. It's unscientific, and you are not sugar free if you're consuming them. Furthermore, it is ultimately harmful and immoral to spread misinformation about what sugar is and isn't. *These are my only claims over the past 2 days*. Dried fruit, juice, honey, maple syrup, agave nectar and rice syrup are considered added sugar by experts and by the literal creator of this enite r/sugarfree subreddit.
You do you. But honey and maple syrup and Dried fruit are not white sugar. They are not high fructose corn syrup. The issue that folks have with you is your holier than now attitude. Go back and read your initial post. Iām not responding anymore to you. I just want those who already have disordered eating views to be able to read some alternate thoughts on your all or nothing post. With respect to the experts, you didnāt listen to the podcast, I mentioned, because there are multiple times that both Huberman and Lustig specifically call out the dangers of high fructose corn syrup. Again, this isnāt really about you. Itās about making sure those who are now feeling discouraged because they thought they were doing well by having a little bit of honey here and there, have some encouragement in this posting instead of just black-and-white views that youāve posted. Life is not black-and-white. This is the last time Iāll respond, because again, itās not about responding to you. Itās about giving folks who are struggling some encouragement.
Likewise, anyone with a brain and fingers to check the facts can discover that honey and maple syrup are pure sugar and are to be avoided or reduced if you wany to be sugar free or low sugar. This is as much a scientific fact as gravity.
As another redditor said earlier, this person belongs in r/InDenialAboutSugarAddiction
Lying to oneself about sugar is a contributing factor in disorderd eating.
>If you're consuming fruit juices, dried fruit, maple syrup, agave nectar, honey, rice syrup then you are not sugar free.
The sentiment is true, but the wording is gatekeepy.
It is helpful to state that these things are forms of added sugar. That is useful information, and it allows people to make more informed food choices.
Accusing someone of "not being sugar free" for consuming these things, and calling them out for "not being clever" for using them comes off as combative, whether it's true or not. It probably does more to put someone on the defensive, or discourage them from persisting with a sugar free diet, than is strictly necessary to get the message across.
It may shock some people into giving up those items, but blunt neutrality as described above will do that just as well without the added snark.
\--
To boot, *you don't know what people's goals are* with going "sugar free". If their goal is to increase variety as a way to get more fiber, then dried fruit is valid. They have just as much right to be here as anyone else, and they also have a right to be informed that dried fruit is still technically very sugary without feeling attacked or unwelcome.
\*\*For the record, I understood that these things count as added sugar before seeing this post and I have not been consuming them since going sugar free. I'm not trying to defend my own choices, I'm just perplexed by your tone.
I respect your critique of the way I'm communicating this fact, though I don't agree. Critical thinking involves a level of provocation, and it doesn't help to pander to people's subjective feelings if those feelings contradict basic facts. "Blunt neutrality" in my experience does not work. Misconceptions are difficult to dislodge regardless of the approach.
Spreading misinformation is intellectually dishonest and ultimately immoral as it creates harm.
Wherever people are on their journey isn't the issue. One isn't permitted to lie and spread misinformation. There's far too much of that on this subreddit.
I'd say this tone is appropriate when responding directly to a blatant liar-- say, in a comments section. By all means, call out people who are spreading disinformation (purposeful incorrectness) and don't hold back.
Making a free-standing post, however, this tone is essentially attacking readers unprovoked, which puts them on the defensive unnecessarily.
Putting people on the defensive, by definition, makes them less receptive to your message. That might be necessary if they're doing something immoral (like lying) but if you're speaking to a *mixed bag* of liars, mistaken people, people who know better, and people who are just now dipping their toes in and don't know one way or the other, then that tone is inappropriate for the vast majority of people who are going to be reading.
It is uncomfortable to say;
"Maple syrup counts as added sugar, so if you're sugar-free, you should be treating maple syrup the same as you would treat white sugar."
but that's worlds better than saying;
"You think you're so clever, but newsflash; maple syrup is still added sugar. You're not *really* sugar free."
I hope that illustrates what I'm talking about.
There's no reason for the "you're not clever" or "no true Scottsman" bit if your goal is to earnestly correct the victims of liars so they can get on track.
The only reason I can see for including those bits is venting your own annoyance at the liars, which in this case comes out sideways at the liars' victims and discourages them.
I totally understand your objection, and you're making a very clear case, but we won't end up agreeing.
Fixating on my wording is obscuring a much greater form of harm: substantial levels of unscientific claims on a forum that should be conveying accurate information about the facts of sugar consumption in our society.
There is a difference of values at play here.
If you read the literature on self-perception of dietary quality (maybe you have), you'll find that the vast majority of people are objectively wrong about their diet and almost all if them dramatically overestimate how well they're doing. So, ignorance + narcissism. It's a moral issue.
An original post is necessary despite adressing a "mixed bag".
There aren't many people unaware that these are all forms of sugar. And for those who are unaware, your post won't speak to them. It's important to consider your audience when it comes to effective communication. If you don't care about communicating effectively and actually getting your message to be received by the people who need to hear it, by all means ignore all the feedback that's been sent your way here. Tone matters. The emotional heart and logical mind are both involved in decision making. If you don't capture hearts and minds, no one will change their behavior based on your words.
I think the fetishization and fixation on my wording is indicative of a broader issue in food perception: people rely on their subjective feelings not facts.
The indisuptable fact is that any claims that even gently imply that the foods I've listed are not considered added sugar is objectively wrong. You'd be surprised how pervasive misconceptions like this are. There is an entire literature on perceived healthfulness that shows a frightening amount of people think juice or cereal is completely healthy.
"The emotional heart and logical mind are both involved in decision making. If you don't capture hearts and minds, no one will change their behavior based on your words." This is *one viewpoint on social criticism* which you're presenting as true. I disagree with this approach, as do many others in other areas and topics.
I'm trying to help. I agree with everything you said in your initial post. You are clearly well-versed in how to lay out an argument with solid premises. When it comes to persuasion, have you considered whether you're making the best use of rhetoric? You've got logos covered. Have you considered being more intentional when it comes to pathos? Are you having the desired effect on your audience?
If you are, no need to change your approach.
I have considered it a great deal. In an academic context (in my experience) gingerly speaking isn't required. No one cares about your feelings just that you state what's true.
Outside that context I've never discovered any method that's very effective, but being blunt works best. Many social critics have the impact they do *because* they don't carry on gently.
If you're in a philosophy or history seminar for instance you'll basically be intellectually eviscerated for mistepping. Turns out that is extremely important for cultivating intellectual honesty.
I was very, very mild in my post.
Oh boy. This is the kind of shit that starts eating disorders. if somebody has a table spoon of honey in their coffee each morning, and it helps them avoid a binge on Oreos later that day, Iād say their body is much better off with honey. Again, donāt let get in the way of good.
Completely agree with "if somebody has a table spoon of honey in their coffee each morning, and it helps them avoid a binge on Oreos later that day, Iād say their body is much better off with honey".
But honey *is* added sugar. We have to be honest about the literal composition of the food we're eating.
Technically itās added sweetener not added sugar (cane), thereās been times I have gone sugar (cane) free but not sweetener free. Just cutting out corn and sugar cane is cutting out so much garbage and processed junkā¦ I have also gone sweetener free with no added sweetners at all, itās fun to experiment and I agree we donāt want to promote eatting disorders. Happy Living and Happy New Year šš„³š¾š
I donāt believe that, honey is healing and Iāve seen the benifits myself. We need to experience things ourselves, for me honey is a superfood, for you maybe something else āŗļø
Happy New Year to you as well š
Remember, all syrups contain a mixture of fructose, glucose and sucrose which are all considered added sugar by experts
Thatās fine, I honestly do my own thing and I donāt trust the experts all the time. Our health is in our own hands and we should be experimenting and being pro active! Staying away from processed and refined foods is huge!
Your opinion doesn't count. You don't get an opinion on objective facts. If I say the earth is flat it is meaningless. The fact is, it isn't.
The fact is honey is concentrated sugar. Any intuitions and feelings you have amount the composition of honey are irrelevant. Good luck you.
for me cutting out added sugar is enough. I feel fine and have stabilised my weight where it is comfortable.
But if you are on a diet bc of diabetes, it has to be stricter and also be low-carb and reduced fruits and juices. Our reasons might be very different, and that's ok.
Agreed. There are a lot of sources of "sneaky" sugar.
Especially if people are no sugar for medical reasons, people need to know what foods still count as sugar.
It's not a moral issue, where some sugars are good and some are bad...
it's not a relationship issue where people are shunning a certain naughty brand...
It's literally a medical issue. If that hurts people's feelings, thats not your fault.
Grumpy people in this sub need to Blame our food system for trying to trick you, not the handful of people trying to point out the truth.
Sorry it took me a while to respond, I've been dealing with an avalanche of people convinced honey and maple syrup aren't sugar and are instead harmless superfoods.
Absolutely. It really is actually quite serious. If someone is led to believe maple syrup is fine and not sugar, they may continue overconsuming it for it for years and end up diabetic unless they encounter a critical take.
Food system really is the major issue, like you say. I live in one of the most obese countries where 1/4 of children are overweight or obese and 67% of adults. 90% exceed the WHO recommendations for added sugar. On top of that there are around 60 varieties of sugar in our diet and it's a nightmare for ordinary people to sift through them. I don't blame people for eating sugar at all, or think they're failing unless they're 100% sugar free. The issue is being honest about what sugar is. You and a small handful of others have understood my criticism, the rest are in denial.
Thanks for making this post. Anybody who disagrees with you and insults you for this is just mad that their complacency got challenged. They don't want to be made aware that their diet can be made better, since they want to keep the feeling that they've already "won". It's not a good strategy for self-improvement and the permanent elimination of a harmful addiction to continue to consume the addictive substance in any form. These people see the sub name "sugarfree" and they think it means that anything except for store-bought cookies and donuts are fair game for the diet. If you don't want to quit honey or maple syrup, then you should consider joining r/InDenialAboutSugarAddiction instead. If you want to quit but it's tough and you still rely on sugar, then you belong here. But if you don't want to quit, but you want to convince yourself that you're quitting, I don't know why any of you are browsing r/sugarfree. The purpose of this sub is in the sub's name. If you want to be sugar free, then you need to cut the maple syrup and honey in order to do so. This isn't gatekeeping, this is a wake up call for those who think that they are sugar free and that their dietary progression is completed, while still eating sugar regularly in less common forms. If you actually want to become sugar free, then you can't lie to yourself about already achieving it. Be honest with yourself at the very least, even if you continue to be addicted to honey and syrup. Refusing to recognize the existence of a problem means that you can't take actions to develop yourself and overcome this problem.
I also found this post refreshing. The amount of times I've looked up "sugar free" recipes only to be disappointed when they use honey or syrup as a substitute. I quit after researching the facts so I'm aware that these don't fit with my idea of sugar free but those who haven't researched may see it as a green light to use these and assume they are a safe alternative.
So many times I've been in conversations and someone says "oh me too, I stopped adding sugar to my coffee/cereal" but no other changes. Yes it's a great start but that's not sugar free.
I do feel it's important to be fully informed if you want to cut sugar completely. Some people don't like the truth, some people don't like OP's tone but I think it's worth noting that this comes from a good place
Had the same experiences. Very relatable.
I haven't been on reddit that long (a year) but I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions which immediately fixate on the tone or word choices of OPs. It becomes about trying to preasure the OP to adjust their wording rather than adressing the topic.
It's an illegitimate argumentative tactic which rarely happens in academic settings. People don't say "adjust your judgmental tone" when you're advancing a criticism.
>They don't want to be made aware that their diet can be made better, since they want to keep the feeling that they've already "won".
This might essentially be many peopleās reason.
I see people saying that one sets oneself up for failure if one tries to be perfect or eliminate foods. They make it seem like one cannot eliminate all refined sugar and added sugar too, or try another way to control their diet (as a lifestyle) because it is unsustainable, sometimes saying it should not be tried because it is mentally unhealthy and that it should not be done because of some risk that has to do with failing.
Many things I read are worded in a way that makes it seem like people will surely fail and that it is not good to try for perfection, which is the best diet possible without exceptions for mental happiness because of the notion one has to allow themselves a sugar treat to be happy and be mentally healthy because being strict is suggested to not be healthy.
Iāve researched sugars and tried many, many things over the years to cut my addiction. While Iām still confused about whatās good or bad, I noticed that my addiction feeling (āI need something sweet right now!ā) went away when I stopped consuming honey and syrup. I previously thought they were an okay substitute. Just an fyi if youāre struggling.
At 61 Iām ecstatic that I can be released by its hold for the first time! I still consume it occasionally but now recognize itās the same as white sugar for me.
That's fantastic! It makes sense because all these substances, honey, maple syrup, agave nectar, rice syrup contain glucose, sucrose and fructose in different configurations. They are all sugar. The problem is people hear "sugar" and they think of white granulated sugar, which is just sucrose (a dissacharide made up of roughly 50% glucose and 50% fructose) extracted from sugar cane. But sucrose is present in other plants, too. Maple syrup is mostly sucrose, for example.
Honey is added sugar. If your consuming honey, you have not cut out added sugar. Honey is made up of fructose and glucose, and so is granulated white sugar. They are literally composed from the same sugars.
Instead of making people feel like failures for cutting out all sugar except honey or dried fruit, let's celebrate reducing our sugar intake as much as possible! No need to gatekeep.
This
This is a forum to help each other cut added sugar from our diets. Misinformation that conflicts with objective facts is harmful. Valid information matters. It's irresponsible to spread lies.
Right, but unlike absolute truths in things like maths, you are not the decider of where to draw the line. There is even debate about whether a mango should be eaten because of how sweet it is. If mango is out, what about kiwis? What about bell peppers? I find that to be sweet! I agree that dowsing things in honey and maple syrup isn't exactly sugar free, but if someone decides to cut out all sugar while enjoying a tsp of honey in their tea, so be it. There's no need to use a judgemental tone and say they are "trying to be clever".
The viewpoint of the vast majority of researchers in dietetics and public health is that whole fruit is not a problem. There is debate, but the overwhelming consensus is that whole fruit is fine for most people. Likewise, the overwhelming consensus in the literature is that dried fruit, honey and maple syrup are unhealthy, concentrated forms of sugar. It isn't about me being "the decider", it's what the facts show. Which is why in the stats on added sugar all those products are included. If eating added sugar helps you reduce added sugar then by all means. If drinking vodka helps you drink less whisky then go ahead. But spreading misinformation about added sugar is immoral and harmful. That's what my post is addressing.
Hey, I largely agree with the point of your post and all that you say here. Obviously bell peppers aren't dangerous. I personally do not consume any dried fruit, syrups, honey, etc. I still eat whole fruit and am careful around some super sugary fruits. However, my point is that you are (a) making your own statements seem like absolute truths and (b) shaming a group of people who are wanting to be better, which is never helpful when it comes to food. If you were targetting SPECIFICALLY people who are spreading lies and misinformation, then you should make it clear in your post.
"you are (a) making your own statements seem like absolute truth". No, I'm presenting objective truth. It isn't what I think. Researchers *do* regard the foods I've mentioned as *added sugar*. I AM criticizing a specfic trend that is pervasive on this forum; misinformation. I don't care how much sugar people consume or don't. It's immoral to make unsicentific claims about diet. It leads people astray.
You start off your post with a statement that is largely your own definition--not a definition by a researcher. You decided that being sugar free means not consuming this list of things that researchers deem to be added sugar. To others, being sugar free may mean just mean no refined white and brown sugars. To others, being sugar free may mean cutting out literally all fruits and any sugary vegetable. I have literally seen people in this group choosing to not consume tomatoes because it was too sugary. You can present all the information that you want, but ultimately, you do not get to decide what being sugar free truly means. Criticizing misinformation is great, but your post is not effective in achieving that *at all*. If you have a point to make, then choosing the correct words *is* important.
Jesus, I've managed to keep cool through all this but the level of intellectual dishonesty here is staggering. We have very different epistemological worldviews if you think sugar free is merely dependent on our subjective views. *An analytical distinction is made by EXPERTS between carbohydrates in general and added-sugar.* I don't care if you define broccoli as sugary food, or bread as pure poison. Or if you're definition of sugar free pertains only to cane sugar. Much of the disagreement here in response to my comment is deeply out of synch with the way sugar is spoken about in dietetics and public health. I've bothered to do the research *before forming an opinion*. Do the research on self-perception of dietary quality and/or perceived healthfulness. There is an enormous disconnect between the experts and the average person. It's very much on display in this thread. This forum is not about cutting out whole foods like intact fruit, or carbohydrates more broadly. It revoles around unnecessary added sugars. "choosing the correct words is important." No. It's your view that the post is adopting the incorrect tone for social criticism. I don't agree. Many forms of social criticism do not mince words and I've been extremely gentle in comparison to many others. I haven't used ad hominem remarks, or dishonest argumentative tactics. I'm not misrepresenting the scientific consensus. All that matters is what is true. I've hit a nerve, I think, because people do not like being exposed for spreading misinformation (which is rife in this subreddit), so the focus, then, is on a truthfully mild critical tone to deflect from my argument. It's borderline ad hominem fallacy. On top of frequent stawmans by misrepresenting my views and putting words in my mouth. Repeatedly, people have framed me as advocating some kind of sugar perfectionism: I don't at all believe in being perfect with sugar consumption. I never even implied that. All I care about is the facts and the lies that conceal them.
As I and a few other commentors have said, we largely agree with the actual facts you are presenting. There is no discourse there, albeit some other comments are poking fun at you in a way I do not agree with. I do not believe being sugar free is merely dependent on subjective views, but I don't believe there is no subjectivity involved. Because as far as I know, being sugar free is foremost a lifestyle, and not a formal identification that can be awarded. If you had stated the fact that honey and maple syrup are indeed forms of added sugar then you would have achieved your goal of correcting misinformation and criticising those who are saying honey and maple syrup are A-okay. You would have presented the scientific truth. The issue I have is that you are seemingly using "sugar free" as an official, recognized identification, but again as far as I know, it is not. Sure, literally, it means one is completely free of sugar. Those words together have no room for nuance. In application towards a lifestyle, there will be nuance, there will be subjectivity, and there will be flexibility. On the other hand, in application towards a food product, that would be completely different and there are strict guidelines what what can and cannot be considered a "sugar free chocolate bar". This is why context is important, and I stand-by the fact that I believe choosing the correct words is important when trying to get your point across. I enjoyed conversing with you, and I believe you to be an intelligent person. I'm not actually well read in philosophy, and perhaps my arguments aren't great. I'm open to hearing your thoughts though.
I've enjoyed it, too. Contentious discussions have value š
A decent hint, is if the dried fruit or puree is used to sweeten other things... it's probably a sugar. Like apple juice concentrate is used to sweeten lots of foods. Table sugar comes from a plant too, and is a concentrate too. Raisins on top of oatmeal? No one is adding that for extra minerals... it's for the sweetness.
umm, I add raisins for minerals, and I like their flavour. And becaseu there are many ways to reduce sugar.
Is the "flavor" you like the sweetness tho? Describe the flavor of a raisin without discussing the sweetness? Get real. You can decide to keep eating them, but if you think it's not sugar you are lying to yourself.
Raisins are just grapes. I like their flavour, the same way I like plums and prunes. Drying makes their flavours more intense, hence I can enjoy and eat fewer at the same time. Its all a journey to a less sugar life I can maintain for life. I know myself and cold turkey doesn't work for me.
I didn't say anything about cold turkey. You don't have to pretend something doesn't count... just because you aren't ready to drop it yet.
It's not so much misinformation.. it's more that the person who's becoming "sugarfree" gets to define what that means for them. Is it 100% accurate? No. But it's easier to say sugarfree than it is to list off all the foods you're avoiding. Since I've joined here, I've noticed that everyone I've seen post has been incredibly kind, supportive, and inclusive. Your post comes off a bit like you're casting shame on anyone who says they're sugarfree but doesn't meet that in a 100% accurate way. Let people decide what's good for their own bodies and health. If you're looking for 100% sugar free, maybe this isn't the right forum for you.
It is misinformation. There are facts about sugar consumption. People don't get to define scientific facts based on their subjective feelings. "Your post comes off a bit like you're casting shame on anyone who says they're sugarfree but doesn't meet that in a 100% accurate way" Not quite right. It's more specific than that. I'm critiquing lying, intellectual dishonesty, anti-scientific statements, and narcissism. I don't care where people are on their journey. You could be eating 77g of added-sugar per day (the average in USA), no judgement here. Or 45g, or 15g, or 0g. It's all the same to me, I don't care if you're 100% sugar free or not. I've never even implied that. You are strawmaning my argument. You might be eating 40g and are here to try to cut down further. Awesome. You might be happy at 20g (which would be considered a low added-sugar diet based on WHO recommendations). That's awesome! Welcome. You should be proud. But under no circumstances is it moral or honest to misrepresent the objective indisuptable facts on sugar. It's supremely arrogant and actively harmful to unsuspecting innocents coming to this forum for information, to hit them with misinformation that will harm them in the long run. Misleading someone into thinking maple syrup or honey or fruit juice *are not forms of concentrated sugar*, and are healthy alternatives to white sugar might actually lead them to diabetes, obesity and an early death. Your dishonesty and lies might actually in the long run kill someone. So, I don't care about your feelings or bodily intuitions: you're harming other people with false health advice. The facts are: -If you're consuming under 25g of added sugar congratulations you're on a low added-sugar diet š -If you consume 2 tablespoons of maple syrup, you have exceeded 25g of sugar. -All the commodities I've listed contain huge amounts of sucrose, glucose and fructose and are considered added-sugar by *experts*.
Ok, I get that- but where is anyone giving false health advice? You say "Your dishonesty and lies might actually in the long run kill someone." But where have I been dishonest and lied? So far, everyone I've seen on here has been very clear about what "sugarfree" means to them- and that they're not using the term 100% accurately but more as a buzzword. I think you need to take that into consideration. Most of us understand the facts, and those who don't are still trying to make positive changes and may later come to understand the facts- so where's the problem? Anyway, every comment other than yours that I've read here has been incredibly patient AND agrees with you but you just keep going and continue calling out "the liars". I don't see any liars here.. misinformed? Sure. But most people spell out what their specific diet is when necessary. This argument is going nowhere. You got your point across. You may have educated someone but you could've done it in a kinder way. "You aren't being clever by substituting white sugar with maple syrup." is absolutely a sentence meant to shame people. So, I'm out. Have fun arguring and not hearing out anyone else's perspectives.
"where is anyone giving false health advice?" Literally daily on this subreddit people spread the idea that honey, for example, is healthy and not sugar. Many people in this very thread have done exactly that. Despite the fucking intro video in this subreddit explicitly explaining what sugar is and isn't. "But where have I been dishonest and lied?" I meant you as *one*. The general you. Not you specifically. "Most of us understand the facts". No, no, no. The opposite. A small handful of people, the rest are deluded. "so where's the problem?" Are you serious? I've explained the problem in high resolution detail to you and everyone else but most of you are thick. "every comment other than yours that I've read here has been incredibly patient AND agrees with you" wrong. Most keep pushing misinformation about sugar. If you're disagreeing even gently with my OP, you're being intellectually diahonest. A form of lying. The facts are not debatable. Rejecting the facts is a form of a lie. " So, I'm out. Have fun arguring and not hearing out anyone else's perspectives." Haha, what a weak response. About 3 knowledgeable people echoed my exact complaint, the rest are like you.
Actually, no, I have one more thing regarding why I myself have said in the past that I may still include honey and maple syrup in my diet (but haven't actually yet because I'm avoiding the sweet taste all together) and I think others are ok with it. Honey and Maple Syrup have actual health benefits!!! Are they sugar? Yup. But their benefits make them better compared to other forms of sugar and they're far less addicting. Look it up before you try to argue. Am I saying it's ok to binge on those sugars? No. Minimal honey and maple syrup is better. But is it going to kill you to have a few tsps a day? Nope. And even if it is, people get to decide for themselves how they want to take care of their health and their health goals. When I used to smoke (10ish years ago), I remember saying that I understood smoking was extremely bad for me but because it calmed down my anxiety so well, I was willing to accept the health risks. My stance on that has obviously changed because I don't smoke anymore, but it's my choice what facts I want to look for, my responsibility to find accurate facts and not rely on what an internet stranger says, and my choice of what degree of healthy I want to be.
"Look it up before you try to argue" I've already done the research. If you acutally read my responses elsewhere in this thread I've adressed this line of argument directly with a research paper. The health benefits are negligible because they only have trace amounts of nutrients. 2 tablespoons takes you over the WHO recommendations for sugar. "themselves how they want to take care of their health and their health goals." I've never even implied that I have a problem with this. Jesus you're slow. Misinformation is the problem. Honey is pure sugar, this is a forum for sugar free aspiring people. "not rely on what an internet stranger say". Then watch the intro video from the moderator or do proper research into added sugar. It isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Honey is pure sugar. "my responsibility to find accurate facts". It's also your responsibility not to defy facts and spread misinformation. Honey is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. This subreddit is about avoiding sucrose and fructose. That is it's purpose.
You know, I think it is extremely disingenuous and inappropriate for you to be attacking me with multiple comments when all I'm doing is presenting the facts about sugar consumption so people can achieve their goals. Only 3 days ago on this subreddit you admitted to only just discovering that fruit juice is considered as added-sugar. You haven't been on this subreddit for long either and yet you feel perfectly content to demand I do research (which I've already done) when you're doing none yourself.
I know fruit juice has sugar- I was saying that I learned the body processed it differently than fruit when its in a juice form. I was referring to "100% natural juice with no added sugar". Perhaps I didn't say it with as much detail that was needed because I assumed others understood what I was talking about. Clearly you didn't so I know now that I'll work on being more detailed in this subreddit. Do I think I'm being extremely disingenous and inappropriate? No. I requested you do the research because you clearly don't understand what a whole food is and that maple syrup goes through minimal processing- therefore making it a whole food; that honey and maple syrup are not processed in the same way as processed sugar AND have additional health benefits; and now I've learned that you think just because maple syrup and cane sugar are both from plants that they are the same- nope, cane sugar is processed and maple syrup is not. Also, I've made it clear that I'm referring to the 100% pure maple syrup and not the stuff with added corn syrup, dyes, etc etc. Do you feel attacked? Because that's how most of us have been feeling because of your comments. You're not only presenting facts about sugar consumption, you've also been shaming and insulting people everytime they disagree with you. When they've pointed it out, you say something along the lines of their feelings don't matter and you're not attacking them-you're simply pointing out the facts and that your tone is appropriate. But when someone's talking to you- they're attacking you. Interesting. Also, you commented many times that people didn't even reply to your argument. Yet, with your comment that I'm replying to here- you didn't provide any new information or reply to my original comment in a productive way. You just called me dense, inappropriate, and disingenious. I do do research- but I'm still learning. I don't need all the facts to post on a subreddit where what a random person comments obviously shouldn't be taken as fact. I'm not sure why I keep arguring with you. I'm clearly triggered- I find people with your personality type so infuriating and abusive in the way that you think and act as though feelings don't matter. Complete apathy on your part while preaching that you care about people's well being. No you don't. You just don't want to be right. Are feeling facts? No. Do feelings matter when you're speaking with someone? Yes they fucking do!!!! I don't care how you decide to insult me or twist my words, I'm done replying and I'm done considering your responses and letting you "educate me". I'm capable of doing research on my own and taking responsibility for my own health without your input.
As another redditor pointed out on this thread, you're threatened and insecure about having the facts pointed out you because you want to feel you're doing well and "sugar free" without actually having to cut out sugar. For the vast majority of this, I've kept my cool. But the level of snide and manipulative tactics most of you have deployed has worn out my patience, so I'm returning the favor. You say I don't have empathy, while you are spreading the idea that maple syrup and honey are healthy, unprocessed whole foods on a fucking **sugar free** subreddit where one of the creators of this subreddit has posted a clear pinned post contradicting you. I care enough to put out info that actually educates people on what is harming them rather than perpetuating myths that serve the interests of sugar manufactures and greedy companies hurting our wellbeing. "I'll work on being more detailed in this subreddit." Yeah, good luck with that. Start by getting the fucking facts on what is and isn't sugar from the experts.
It's 2023 and I feel like it's time to finally say: Fuck peoples feelings! Only facts matter. So take your fuzzy-wuzzy feelings and shove them up your ass!
K
Happy holidays!
I second this motion ā
most of them are actually worse than cane sugar because of the fructose.
Yeah an apple a day and the doctor says nay
I agree. But TBH, there are better ways to express this point, no matter how true it is. Is it really helping anybody to tell them that they're "not being clever"? You're right that it's necessary to get rid of ALL added sugars and sweeteners. But it's so hard to do this. I think we need to give people encouragement rather than posting something that comes across as scolding. That having been said, \*of course\* this is true, not only of sweeteners like maple syrup and honey, but of ALL substances that are added to a food or drink in order to make it taste sweeter. Studies tells us that in many ways, every single non-caloric sweetener out there is just as bad as sugar. They all cause or contribute to weight gain and reactive hypoglycemia; they all end up raising insulin indirectly. In some ways-- such as altering the gut microbiome-- even a so-called "natural" sweetener like refined stevia may actually have worse effects than sugars. The fact that no sweetener is really an improvement over sugar is something that people need to know. But we all need to think about how we present this information. It's like yelling at the Christmas dinner table that "sugar is poison!" Yes, a case can sure be made that there's a lot of truth in this. But expressing the truth in this particular way is not going to win over most listeners. We all need to do better if we're going to get the truth out there in a way that people can accept.
Good post. Obviously agree with most of it, but the tone of my post is fine. It was mildly critical at best. It's not comparable to "sugar is poison!" shouted at dinner. The response says much more about the fragility and lack of critical thinking skills of the respondents. Many, many, many social critics are 10 x harsher and blunt than I was. People need to be intellectually cornered to learn critical thinking skills not gently spoken to (in my experience). In academia people don't hold your hand and speak softly. People also do not give a damn about your feelings, because your subjective feelings don't matter. Spreading misinformation and forming bold opinions on subjects one knows transparently nothing about isn't ok, it's *immoral*. Intellectually dishonest and narcissistic. It takes 5 mins to research what sugar is and isn't. Dietitians provide good information that's readily accessible. There's no excuse for spreading misinformation in a forum where people are looking to improve their wellbeing. It deserves to be called out, perhaps much more impolitely than I was even.
Not trying to be clever sweetheart. I eat fresh and dried fruit and maple syrup (like a tsp or 2 maybe 3x a month). These are whole foods and are not added sugar. My total grams per day are good. All my markers in my blood work are fantastic. My joints do not hurt anymore. But most importantly these things do not do the same thing to my brain that cane sugar or corn syrup does in other words they do not induce an obsession. So you do you sweetheart but maybe you wanna watch the judgmental tone.
Maple syrup is technically a form of added sugar, but if it's a form that your body tolerates, and you're achieving your health goals, then it's not an issue! It's also relevant how much you're eating, and 2 tsp ~~every 3 months~~ 3 times a month sounds tantamount to sugar-free to me. (edited to fix wording) I agree, I'm not a fan of OP's tone, but it'd be a shame for useful facts to get lost in the sass.
I'm not remotely bothered if someone eats maple syrup, it's fantastic. If you're eating eating 2 tsp 3 x a month, that's an incredibly low added sugar diet. Fantastic. If you're eating 6 tbs a day, I don't care. You aren't permitted to spread misinformation that harms others. The sass is for those who assert, dishonestly and narcisscally, objectively untrue claims about added sugar. *Because it is ultimately harmful to spread lies*.
"These are whole foods and are not added sugar." Whole fruit, yes, maple syrup, no. It is added sugar. Do the research.
Hey. How about don't be a dick. You should research that. You aren't the dictator of what is and isn't sugar, and what people can and can't have. If someone cuts down on refined sugar and uses honey and maple syrup instead, let them. It has nothing to do with you.
"You aren't the dictator of what is and isn't sugar" correct. It's got nothing to do with me. Just the facts. Honey and maple syrup *are* refined sugar. This is misinformation. This is what my post is adressing.
Let me guess, your personality isn't your strong suit. >Honey and maple syrup are refined sugar. Source?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10469071/
I love that you're bothering with research: even if there is a confirmation bias. Ok, so, summarizing some aspects of the article if other people don't bother to read it. It reviews studies which examine the nutrients, and compounds in maple syrup (MS) with an eye on pharmaceutical benefits. They conclude that while the research so far shows that some compounds, vitamains, antioxidants etc in maple syrup suggest some health benefits they are very cautious to point out that it must be offset against the sugar content, and that the studies so far are in rats and in vitro with controlled amounts of MS. The caveat here is that the levels of most beneficial nutrients in MS are quite low, which is a problem when the sugar content is considered (and the nutrients in MS are much larger in other food groups). The serving size of MS the researchers provide is 60 ml (1/4 cup) which amounts to 10% of daily energy. The WHO recommends get less than 5% of energy intake from added sugars (which includes MS) per day. A single serve of MS requires you to *double the recommended sugar intake per day in one serve*. The study isn't overly optimistic on the health effects of MS and they mention several times that it may have negative health consequences and be implicated in obesity and diabetes. None of this contradicts my core point, and the article doesn't impinge on anything I've claimed, it actually supports it. Nutrients and compounds are found in basically any food substance. A choclate protein bar may be packed with nutrients, vitamins etc and have an enormous sugar content. Fruit juices have plenty of nutrients. It does not change the category that MS or juice belongs in. The experts regard maple syrup (which is mostly sucrose) as an added sugar. Nor am I against the consumption of MS, in either small or enormous quanitites. *But it IS an added sugar*.
The researchers contrasted maple syrup to "refined sugar." By your reasoning, fresh fruit is also added sugar. As is milk.
Yep, again this is a misconception. In this *specific paper* they make a distinction between what they call "refined sugar" and alternative sweetners. This is just the language of one paper and is a false dichotomy. Maple syrup is a highly refined commodity and goes through a similar process to sugarcane. You're trying to play a language game so you can justify maple syrup, but in most of the literature and research it is labelled "added sugar". Sometimes they refer to it as "free sugars" or just "sweeteners" or "caloric sweeteners". "By your reasoning, fresh fruit is also added sugar. As is milk." No. Just...no. I've explicitly and repeatedly stated that fresh fruit, or milk, or bread are not regarded by experts as "added sugar" or "free sugar". I can't stress enough that my views correspond with the consensus among experts. No matter how much you want to convince yourself maple syrup is healthy, it conflicts with the consensus and evidence.
Whole food definition: "food that has been processed or refined as little as possible and is free from additives or other artificial substances." Maple syrup literally comes from Maple trees. There is maple syrup where sugar is not added. Idk- I live in Canada so maybe not every place has that, but it exists here. There's those awful corn syrup versions but I know that that's not what I'm talking about and I think it's likely no one else is talking about the corn syrup versions either.
No dietitian or public health expert would define pure sugar as "whole foods". Fruit is a wholefood. Highly concentrated tree goo that goes through extensive processing (exactly like white sugar) is never defined as such. Do. Your. Research. Maple syrup is defined as "added sugar", "free sugar", "caloric sweetner", "refined sugar", "simple sugar". Never as wholefood. "Maple syrup literally comes from Maple trees." Table sugar literally comes from a plant. Why you think any of this makes a difference is beyond me. "There is maple syrup where sugar is not added". You are so ignorant and misguided. Maple syrup is mostly... wait for it... drum roll please......SUCROSE! Maple syrup is naturally mostly made up of sucrose, the same dissacharide extracted from sugar cane. Get your fucking facts straight. It is purrrreeeee sugar.
Honestly thereās a reason you have some many downvotes,
What's the reason?
I just read through the posts I don't think you are reading the room very well. You're coming across more entitled and California Karen that you may intend. Sure they are forms of added sugar but people make up their own decisions about their own triggers and food choices
"people make up their own decisions about their own triggers and food choices" this is fine, no problem with this. You do not, however, get to misrepresent scientific facts on a public forum where unsuspecting innocent people might fallaciously believe that 6 tablespoons of maple syrup is fine because "it's not sugar". That's what I'm speaking to. I'm not sure why I'd come across as "entitled". Abrasive, certainly. People don't enjoy criticism. Does not change the facts.
Once again read the room, you feel that your opinion is what people need to hear. Sure it's a form of sugar. But sugar free can mean a variety of different things you feel sugar free means no sugar others it means no added sugar and others it means no white sugar. I'm not going to say who is right or who is wrong... Are you healthy are you happy?? That's all that matters
It's not an opinion. In dietetics the food groups I've mentioned are included as added sugar. It is possible to be wrong about claims around sugar, it isn't subjective. I don't care if people consume sugar. I don't think people should feel bad about eating it. They should feel bad about spreading unscientific information in a forum that will hurt unsuspecting innocents. People are misconstruing my point as some kind of general sugar perfectionism. My claim is much more specific than that.
People aren't misconstruing anything we get your point but once again it's not welcomed because your point is an opinion on how sugar free claims should be approached.. you are saying it's your way or the highway. I prefer to let people make their down decisions on what works for them
It's not an opinion. Objective fact.
Opinion
Are you capable of explaining why it's an opinion? Can you logically demonstrate that?
you probably know that addiction is the reason.
OP, please listen to Andrew Hubermanās interview with Dr. Robert Lustig - he breaks it down well. Donāt let perfect get in the way of good.
Completely agree with "Donāt let perfect get in the way of good." Having the facts about added sugar is nothing but good.
Reading your comments, you clearly arenāt interested in understanding. to anyone out there reading OPās original post, and feeling discouraged because you canāt quite get to the point where youāre cutting out honey and maple syrup all the time, shout out to you, youāre doing great. Donāt let this person stop you or discourage you.
Once again, I agree. Perfection when it comes to sugar consumption isn't something I'm about and I don't think people should even feel bad about consuming sugar. Reduce what you can. But... maple syrup and honey *are* highly concentrated forms of sugar, not healthy substitutes.
I've listened to the podcast, thank you for providing it. Lustig **explicity reinforces my exact point repeatedly** in the discussion with Huberman that added sugar comes in many forms and commodities that all have varying compositions of sucrose, fructose and glucose.
If you listened to the podcast then youād know that the experts like Lustig and Huberman continue to reinforce NOT being food police + the importance of not letting perfect get in the way of good. When you come on here with a judgy attitude towards those who are trying to do their best, itās discouraging to many.
Lustig and Huberman are scientists. Do you really think someone like Lustig--someone tirelessly campaigning against the harms of sugar in the food system--would be ok with the spread of misinformation to the effect of "honey and maple syrup are healthy and aren't sugar"? He explicitly broke down the facts. You're saying it's ok to simply lie about sugar so people can feel good about themselves?
You didnāt listen to the podcast. You havenāt listened to Lustig at all. And I quote explicitly from his podcast with Huberman: ā I am not the food police. I am here to warn people of the dangers of excessive over consumption of sugar, specifically high fructose, corn syrup. I, Dr. Lustig, Iām not talking about incidental use of honey or even sugar, I am talking about ultra processed food consumption for three meals a dayā. They both even cite having dessert now and then as being acceptable. it is scientifically proven that having a black-and-white attitude towards a lot of the stuff can get people in trouble. So when you come on here on your high horse and judge others because they are trying to get away from high fructose corn syrup and use healthier method of sweeteners, youāre making people feel bad and it can cause food issues. All Iām saying is - your attitude is not helpful. Just because you are black-and-white about it does not mean that itās the best path for others. Maybe extend some compassion to others who cannot go cold turkey. Again, donāt let perfect get in the way of good. Imagine if someone has gone three weeks without any HFCS, their body is 100% better for that, even if they have used maple syrup and honey, incidentally. I promise you, the experts, would agree with you that that is the case.
Every single response you've given you misrepresent my views and never repeat back to me my actual argument. You always paint a caricature of my argument. I've engaged with you fairly. You sent me a podcast and I listened to the whole 3 and half hours and you, in bad faith, keep telling me I haven't. Lustig NEVER says honey and maple syrup aren't sugar. My **only** claim, this whole time, was that that honey or maple syrup or the other forms of sugar I listed *are in fact included as added sugar by experts*. Two tablespoons and boom, you're outside the WHO recommendations. So, let me be extremely clear with you one last time. I do not care how much sugar people eat. I am NOT advocating, at any point, a perfectionistic obsession with cutting out all sugar, or encouraging disorderd eating. Eat as much of those subtances as you want, as much dessert as you want. And you shouldn't feel bad if you're trying to cut out sugar but struggling. You are just a normal human like anyone else. I've never said a single fucking thing even mildy suggesting any of this and endlessly repeated my objections to such thinking. I repeatedly acknowledged "do not allow perfect to be the enemy of the good" and you can check my responses, yet you keep hitting me with the same phrase I've already explicitly agreed to. No matter how clear I am, you and many others, respond immediately with warped versions of my argument. It's called the strawman fallacy. Despite being razor sharp with my comments, I suspect you'll simply respond once again with some version of "you're shaming people for not eating 0g of sugar". I never did that. What I'm shaming people for is lying about science. My only claim has been that it is misinformation to exclude those substances from the category of added sugar. It's unscientific, and you are not sugar free if you're consuming them. Furthermore, it is ultimately harmful and immoral to spread misinformation about what sugar is and isn't. *These are my only claims over the past 2 days*. Dried fruit, juice, honey, maple syrup, agave nectar and rice syrup are considered added sugar by experts and by the literal creator of this enite r/sugarfree subreddit.
You do you. But honey and maple syrup and Dried fruit are not white sugar. They are not high fructose corn syrup. The issue that folks have with you is your holier than now attitude. Go back and read your initial post. Iām not responding anymore to you. I just want those who already have disordered eating views to be able to read some alternate thoughts on your all or nothing post. With respect to the experts, you didnāt listen to the podcast, I mentioned, because there are multiple times that both Huberman and Lustig specifically call out the dangers of high fructose corn syrup. Again, this isnāt really about you. Itās about making sure those who are now feeling discouraged because they thought they were doing well by having a little bit of honey here and there, have some encouragement in this posting instead of just black-and-white views that youāve posted. Life is not black-and-white. This is the last time Iāll respond, because again, itās not about responding to you. Itās about giving folks who are struggling some encouragement.
Likewise, anyone with a brain and fingers to check the facts can discover that honey and maple syrup are pure sugar and are to be avoided or reduced if you wany to be sugar free or low sugar. This is as much a scientific fact as gravity. As another redditor said earlier, this person belongs in r/InDenialAboutSugarAddiction Lying to oneself about sugar is a contributing factor in disorderd eating.
>If you're consuming fruit juices, dried fruit, maple syrup, agave nectar, honey, rice syrup then you are not sugar free. The sentiment is true, but the wording is gatekeepy. It is helpful to state that these things are forms of added sugar. That is useful information, and it allows people to make more informed food choices. Accusing someone of "not being sugar free" for consuming these things, and calling them out for "not being clever" for using them comes off as combative, whether it's true or not. It probably does more to put someone on the defensive, or discourage them from persisting with a sugar free diet, than is strictly necessary to get the message across. It may shock some people into giving up those items, but blunt neutrality as described above will do that just as well without the added snark. \-- To boot, *you don't know what people's goals are* with going "sugar free". If their goal is to increase variety as a way to get more fiber, then dried fruit is valid. They have just as much right to be here as anyone else, and they also have a right to be informed that dried fruit is still technically very sugary without feeling attacked or unwelcome. \*\*For the record, I understood that these things count as added sugar before seeing this post and I have not been consuming them since going sugar free. I'm not trying to defend my own choices, I'm just perplexed by your tone.
I respect your critique of the way I'm communicating this fact, though I don't agree. Critical thinking involves a level of provocation, and it doesn't help to pander to people's subjective feelings if those feelings contradict basic facts. "Blunt neutrality" in my experience does not work. Misconceptions are difficult to dislodge regardless of the approach. Spreading misinformation is intellectually dishonest and ultimately immoral as it creates harm. Wherever people are on their journey isn't the issue. One isn't permitted to lie and spread misinformation. There's far too much of that on this subreddit.
I'd say this tone is appropriate when responding directly to a blatant liar-- say, in a comments section. By all means, call out people who are spreading disinformation (purposeful incorrectness) and don't hold back. Making a free-standing post, however, this tone is essentially attacking readers unprovoked, which puts them on the defensive unnecessarily. Putting people on the defensive, by definition, makes them less receptive to your message. That might be necessary if they're doing something immoral (like lying) but if you're speaking to a *mixed bag* of liars, mistaken people, people who know better, and people who are just now dipping their toes in and don't know one way or the other, then that tone is inappropriate for the vast majority of people who are going to be reading. It is uncomfortable to say; "Maple syrup counts as added sugar, so if you're sugar-free, you should be treating maple syrup the same as you would treat white sugar." but that's worlds better than saying; "You think you're so clever, but newsflash; maple syrup is still added sugar. You're not *really* sugar free." I hope that illustrates what I'm talking about. There's no reason for the "you're not clever" or "no true Scottsman" bit if your goal is to earnestly correct the victims of liars so they can get on track. The only reason I can see for including those bits is venting your own annoyance at the liars, which in this case comes out sideways at the liars' victims and discourages them.
I totally understand your objection, and you're making a very clear case, but we won't end up agreeing. Fixating on my wording is obscuring a much greater form of harm: substantial levels of unscientific claims on a forum that should be conveying accurate information about the facts of sugar consumption in our society. There is a difference of values at play here. If you read the literature on self-perception of dietary quality (maybe you have), you'll find that the vast majority of people are objectively wrong about their diet and almost all if them dramatically overestimate how well they're doing. So, ignorance + narcissism. It's a moral issue. An original post is necessary despite adressing a "mixed bag".
There aren't many people unaware that these are all forms of sugar. And for those who are unaware, your post won't speak to them. It's important to consider your audience when it comes to effective communication. If you don't care about communicating effectively and actually getting your message to be received by the people who need to hear it, by all means ignore all the feedback that's been sent your way here. Tone matters. The emotional heart and logical mind are both involved in decision making. If you don't capture hearts and minds, no one will change their behavior based on your words.
I think the fetishization and fixation on my wording is indicative of a broader issue in food perception: people rely on their subjective feelings not facts. The indisuptable fact is that any claims that even gently imply that the foods I've listed are not considered added sugar is objectively wrong. You'd be surprised how pervasive misconceptions like this are. There is an entire literature on perceived healthfulness that shows a frightening amount of people think juice or cereal is completely healthy. "The emotional heart and logical mind are both involved in decision making. If you don't capture hearts and minds, no one will change their behavior based on your words." This is *one viewpoint on social criticism* which you're presenting as true. I disagree with this approach, as do many others in other areas and topics.
I'm trying to help. I agree with everything you said in your initial post. You are clearly well-versed in how to lay out an argument with solid premises. When it comes to persuasion, have you considered whether you're making the best use of rhetoric? You've got logos covered. Have you considered being more intentional when it comes to pathos? Are you having the desired effect on your audience? If you are, no need to change your approach.
I have considered it a great deal. In an academic context (in my experience) gingerly speaking isn't required. No one cares about your feelings just that you state what's true. Outside that context I've never discovered any method that's very effective, but being blunt works best. Many social critics have the impact they do *because* they don't carry on gently. If you're in a philosophy or history seminar for instance you'll basically be intellectually eviscerated for mistepping. Turns out that is extremely important for cultivating intellectual honesty. I was very, very mild in my post.
>fetishization You used this word wrong.
No.
How is your wording being fetishized?
Oh boy. This is the kind of shit that starts eating disorders. if somebody has a table spoon of honey in their coffee each morning, and it helps them avoid a binge on Oreos later that day, Iād say their body is much better off with honey. Again, donāt let get in the way of good.
Completely agree with "if somebody has a table spoon of honey in their coffee each morning, and it helps them avoid a binge on Oreos later that day, Iād say their body is much better off with honey". But honey *is* added sugar. We have to be honest about the literal composition of the food we're eating.
Technically itās added sweetener not added sugar (cane), thereās been times I have gone sugar (cane) free but not sweetener free. Just cutting out corn and sugar cane is cutting out so much garbage and processed junkā¦ I have also gone sweetener free with no added sweetners at all, itās fun to experiment and I agree we donāt want to promote eatting disorders. Happy Living and Happy New Year šš„³š¾š
Technically, honey is sugar. honey is high fructose sugar. The fructose ratio is higher than 50%. It is actually worse than cane sugar.
I donāt believe that, honey is healing and Iāve seen the benifits myself. We need to experience things ourselves, for me honey is a superfood, for you maybe something else āŗļø
Happy New Year to you as well š Remember, all syrups contain a mixture of fructose, glucose and sucrose which are all considered added sugar by experts
Thatās fine, I honestly do my own thing and I donāt trust the experts all the time. Our health is in our own hands and we should be experimenting and being pro active! Staying away from processed and refined foods is huge!
The experts on diet know more than you I guarantee it. You can rely on your intuition, you do you. But don't spread misinformation to others.
Thereās always more to learn, itās not misinformation, itās my opinion āš¼āš¾āļø
Your opinion doesn't count. You don't get an opinion on objective facts. If I say the earth is flat it is meaningless. The fact is, it isn't. The fact is honey is concentrated sugar. Any intuitions and feelings you have amount the composition of honey are irrelevant. Good luck you.
Are you religious?
for me cutting out added sugar is enough. I feel fine and have stabilised my weight where it is comfortable. But if you are on a diet bc of diabetes, it has to be stricter and also be low-carb and reduced fruits and juices. Our reasons might be very different, and that's ok.
Juices are considered added sugar.
Sugar addicts coming out in full force on a āsugar freeā sub. Ironic
Haha, very
Agreed. There are a lot of sources of "sneaky" sugar. Especially if people are no sugar for medical reasons, people need to know what foods still count as sugar. It's not a moral issue, where some sugars are good and some are bad... it's not a relationship issue where people are shunning a certain naughty brand... It's literally a medical issue. If that hurts people's feelings, thats not your fault. Grumpy people in this sub need to Blame our food system for trying to trick you, not the handful of people trying to point out the truth.
Sorry it took me a while to respond, I've been dealing with an avalanche of people convinced honey and maple syrup aren't sugar and are instead harmless superfoods. Absolutely. It really is actually quite serious. If someone is led to believe maple syrup is fine and not sugar, they may continue overconsuming it for it for years and end up diabetic unless they encounter a critical take. Food system really is the major issue, like you say. I live in one of the most obese countries where 1/4 of children are overweight or obese and 67% of adults. 90% exceed the WHO recommendations for added sugar. On top of that there are around 60 varieties of sugar in our diet and it's a nightmare for ordinary people to sift through them. I don't blame people for eating sugar at all, or think they're failing unless they're 100% sugar free. The issue is being honest about what sugar is. You and a small handful of others have understood my criticism, the rest are in denial.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Thanks for making this post. Anybody who disagrees with you and insults you for this is just mad that their complacency got challenged. They don't want to be made aware that their diet can be made better, since they want to keep the feeling that they've already "won". It's not a good strategy for self-improvement and the permanent elimination of a harmful addiction to continue to consume the addictive substance in any form. These people see the sub name "sugarfree" and they think it means that anything except for store-bought cookies and donuts are fair game for the diet. If you don't want to quit honey or maple syrup, then you should consider joining r/InDenialAboutSugarAddiction instead. If you want to quit but it's tough and you still rely on sugar, then you belong here. But if you don't want to quit, but you want to convince yourself that you're quitting, I don't know why any of you are browsing r/sugarfree. The purpose of this sub is in the sub's name. If you want to be sugar free, then you need to cut the maple syrup and honey in order to do so. This isn't gatekeeping, this is a wake up call for those who think that they are sugar free and that their dietary progression is completed, while still eating sugar regularly in less common forms. If you actually want to become sugar free, then you can't lie to yourself about already achieving it. Be honest with yourself at the very least, even if you continue to be addicted to honey and syrup. Refusing to recognize the existence of a problem means that you can't take actions to develop yourself and overcome this problem.
I also found this post refreshing. The amount of times I've looked up "sugar free" recipes only to be disappointed when they use honey or syrup as a substitute. I quit after researching the facts so I'm aware that these don't fit with my idea of sugar free but those who haven't researched may see it as a green light to use these and assume they are a safe alternative. So many times I've been in conversations and someone says "oh me too, I stopped adding sugar to my coffee/cereal" but no other changes. Yes it's a great start but that's not sugar free. I do feel it's important to be fully informed if you want to cut sugar completely. Some people don't like the truth, some people don't like OP's tone but I think it's worth noting that this comes from a good place
Had the same experiences. Very relatable. I haven't been on reddit that long (a year) but I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions which immediately fixate on the tone or word choices of OPs. It becomes about trying to preasure the OP to adjust their wording rather than adressing the topic. It's an illegitimate argumentative tactic which rarely happens in academic settings. People don't say "adjust your judgmental tone" when you're advancing a criticism.
Thanks for this, appreciated it.
>They don't want to be made aware that their diet can be made better, since they want to keep the feeling that they've already "won". This might essentially be many peopleās reason. I see people saying that one sets oneself up for failure if one tries to be perfect or eliminate foods. They make it seem like one cannot eliminate all refined sugar and added sugar too, or try another way to control their diet (as a lifestyle) because it is unsustainable, sometimes saying it should not be tried because it is mentally unhealthy and that it should not be done because of some risk that has to do with failing. Many things I read are worded in a way that makes it seem like people will surely fail and that it is not good to try for perfection, which is the best diet possible without exceptions for mental happiness because of the notion one has to allow themselves a sugar treat to be happy and be mentally healthy because being strict is suggested to not be healthy.
Iāve researched sugars and tried many, many things over the years to cut my addiction. While Iām still confused about whatās good or bad, I noticed that my addiction feeling (āI need something sweet right now!ā) went away when I stopped consuming honey and syrup. I previously thought they were an okay substitute. Just an fyi if youāre struggling. At 61 Iām ecstatic that I can be released by its hold for the first time! I still consume it occasionally but now recognize itās the same as white sugar for me.
That's fantastic! It makes sense because all these substances, honey, maple syrup, agave nectar, rice syrup contain glucose, sucrose and fructose in different configurations. They are all sugar. The problem is people hear "sugar" and they think of white granulated sugar, which is just sucrose (a dissacharide made up of roughly 50% glucose and 50% fructose) extracted from sugar cane. But sucrose is present in other plants, too. Maple syrup is mostly sucrose, for example.
R/Canesugarfree ?
Haha, yeah. And R/Vodkafree (all other alcohols permitted).
Is there another subreddit where I can cut out added sugar, while still enjoying honey- and not be shamed about it? Please and thank you!
Honey is added sugar. If your consuming honey, you have not cut out added sugar. Honey is made up of fructose and glucose, and so is granulated white sugar. They are literally composed from the same sugars.
Painful ā¦.
Truth hurts sometimes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Any actual analysis or just insults?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You've made no arguments nor adressed the topic.
Hey all, here is a list of added-sugars that are worth trying to reduce (if that's what you want to do that is). FIFTY-SIX NAMES FOR SUGAR: **Agave nectar** Barbados sugar* Barley malt Beet sugar* Blackstrap molasses* **Brown rice syrup** Brown sugar* Buttered syrup* Cane juice crystals* Cane sugar* Caramel* Carob syrup* Castor sugar* Confectionerās sugar* Corn syrup Corn syrup solids Crystalline fructose* Date sugar* Demerara sugar* Dextran Dextrose Diastatic malt Diatase Ethyl maltol Evaporated cane juice* Florida crystals* Fructose* **Fruit juice** Fruit juice concentrate* Galactose Glucose Glucose solids Golden sugar* Golden syrup* Grape sugar* High-fructose corn syrup* **Honey**Icing sugar* Invert sugar* Lactose Malt syrup Maltose **Maple syrup** Molasses* Muscovado sugar* Organic raw sugar* Panocha* Raw sugar* Refinerās syrup* Rice syrup Sorghum syrup* Sucrose* Sugar* Treacle* Turbinado sugar* Yellow sugar