SharpSpine
Master Shaver
My Flavor Sabre
Posts: 1,151
|
Post by SharpSpine on Jan 1, 2014 19:17:24 GMT -6
This years January challenge shall live up to its moniker. The last 4 years I have started the year off with a sugar-free month. I've been successful and I've failed. Some shifts in diet should make the sugar-free aspect easier this year so I decided to add on a new aspect.
2013 saw me return to running at a nice consistency over the summer months. Sadly as the weather got colder and the days shorter I didn't fare well with my morning runs any longer. Highly motivated to make running fit in my schedule I have challenged myself to run a minimum of 2 miles each and every day of the month.
So there's my challenge to myself to start off 2014. No sugar or sugar-like foods for the entire month. Run at least 2 miles every day of the month.
How are you challenging/bettering yourself this year?
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Jan 2, 2014 6:29:41 GMT -6
Reining in the booze a bit ...
A couple of years back, I switched over to a paleo/primal-like diet (small "d" ... a lifestyle change rather than a Diet) and so processed foods of all types got the boot along with grains. It's not a religion, so ever now and again you'll see me piling a McD down or enjoying some tortillas, perhaps a pitta.
I also took up walking as a means of de-stressing, which was maybe just around the block initially, now 2-3 miles every evening (fencing nights excepted).
By "sugar-like" do you mean all carbohydrates? Dropping more processed carbs, like breads, for a while is a good thing, but there is an abundance of goodness still to be had from roots, even white rice without suffering the same effects as sugar and processed carbs. If you're running, you'll be glad of the energy.
It's very do-able and I wish you the best of luck.
|
|
SharpSpine
Master Shaver
My Flavor Sabre
Posts: 1,151
|
Post by SharpSpine on Jan 2, 2014 7:26:18 GMT -6
This is my 5th year doing this and yes for the month it is pretty strict. Outside of the month I add some starches in especially tubers. For this month though no starchy carbs (low glycemic fruits and all veggies are ok), no bread, no pasta, no artificial chemical sweeteners, etc.
|
|
SharpSpine
Master Shaver
My Flavor Sabre
Posts: 1,151
|
Post by SharpSpine on Jan 2, 2014 15:05:25 GMT -6
Day 1 of my January Challenge was a success. No sugar at all and 2 miles run. Doing good on the sugar free today too after having a withdrawal headache last night. The tough part tonight will be getting the run in after work and with snow on the ground. At least the roads will be clear.
|
|
exapno
Shave Master
Posts: 108
|
Post by exapno on Jan 2, 2014 16:54:09 GMT -6
I can't find the full quotation as the Whiskey blog that it was on is down but I found this much:
Dr. David Reuben, author of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Nutrition says,
“White refined sugar-is not a food. It is a pure chemical extracted from plant sources, purer in fact than cocaine, which it resembles in many ways. Its true name is sucrose and its chemical formula is C12H22O11.The chemical formula for cocaine is C17H21NO4. Sugar’s formula again is C12H22O11. For all practical purposes, the difference is that sugar is missing the “N”, or nitrogen atom.”
There was a lot more to the original quotation... I'll try to find the rest. I applaud what you're doing Brian.
|
|
SharpSpine
Master Shaver
My Flavor Sabre
Posts: 1,151
|
Post by SharpSpine on Jan 2, 2014 17:46:39 GMT -6
I'm not to sure about that. There is a big difference when you are dealing with that many extra carbon atoms as they can arranged in so many different ways. Also a nitrogen atom in one and not the other is a huge difference. I do agree that sugar is super addictive and can easily cause more problems to the body than other drugs.
Macronutrients are what we should really be thinking of as food and there are 3 of them; protein, fat, & carbohydrate. Sugar is a carb and so are fruits and vegetables. The Standard American Diet (SAD) is high on carbs and low on fat with protein being in the middle around 30%. It should be exactly opposite with the majority of our calories coming from fat and very little (think 5-20%) coming from carbs. Simple carbs like sugar give us tons of calories with very little, if any, nutrition. So it is common for the people of America to be overfed and undernourished. I am guilty of this at times and I look forward now to my higher level of focus this month in reducing one of the largest contributors to inflammation and inflammatory processes in the body.
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Jan 3, 2014 13:06:29 GMT -6
I do agree, broadly, but there is some really interesting research coming out around resistant starch. If you read between the (drunken?) Libertarian ramblings, this fellow has some pretty interesting things to say: www.freetheanimal.comWhen I made the switch over to ancestral eating (now three years ago), I saw the macronutrient pyramid and for the first year ate a lot of meat, fat added and little carb. I achieved my goal, which was some weight loss, incidentally cured my lifelong gastric reflux issue (it's all about inflammation) and took up fencin, stunning everyone at my first competition by going the whole day on nothing more than very lightly salted water. No food, no carbs, no cramming down bananas between bouts ... I was running on fat and not suffering the highs and crashes that the energy drink and banana brigade were. Moving into the second year of that style of eating, I ditched the fat. I ate the meat and fish with very little added, enjoying it with whatever fat was within the flesh. Maintaining metabolic flexibility, I added potatoes back in. Not a whole heap, some. Third year, I'm quite happy with some rice and rice noodles. Now, I don't really say I eat ancestrally: paleo/primal/whatever, just that I'm a natural eater. It takes a long time to learn how you feel, to make the reset and to really listen to your body from there. Savouring hunger, not snacking and in the end, I think I would say that I don't really look at what I eat ... I instinctually eat well and sufficient for my needs. We've gone really wrong somewhere when we have so much literature on what we should be eating, how and when. Ask a cat about this and he'll look at you as if you're daft. You eat. If it's not food, you don't eat it and mask over the symptoms with pills; you eat real food. If it makes you ill, don't eat it again. We're not cats, though and we live in a world where we actually cannot eat like that, so I rely upon principles: Principles become second nature, unlike the lengthy tomes heavy in scientific dogma that make up a diet book, and three principles which I have held most useful in determining whether food is good to eat since taking my first steps onto the savannah are: The Hunter/Gatherer Principle - can the food be hunted and gathered in the wild? This links into the local and organic principles I have always held. This guides us towards nutritious food. The Raw Principle - can the food be eaten raw? This is not to say that it should be, although something more like can it kill you even when it is dead? is perhaps a more useful a way of putting it. I think that's one from a blogger called Kurt Harris. Anyway, this guards us against toxins. The Predator Principle - is the food for grazing prey? J Stanton's 'Eat Like a Predator' shows us how to eat food which will form meals, and to fast in between. Prey graze their way through the day while predators hunt, eat and fast. This protects us from snacking. I have one further principle to add which has helped me when re-engaging with supermarkets and picking up food that comes in packaging: The Ingredient/Description Principle - does the ingredients list more than the description of the food? The ingredients for butter should read as "butter"; for salted butter, "butter, sea salt" - there should be no stabilisers, no emulsifiers, no preservatives. That, and any ingredient that has the letter X in it cannot be good! X is not natural; X is laboratory! Put another way, the Hunter/Gatherer Principle leads us to food. The Raw Principle tells us if it is fit to eat, while the Predator Principle shows us whether is it ideal. Those three are then fully modernised by the Ingredient/Description Principle which helps us to make a decision about food which comes in unnatural packaging. ... which I have since distilled into two "truths", if you like: Let ingredients be your inspiration, your mantra being "take real foods and put them together". Let nature be your personal shopper, your mantra being "eat local, seasonal and organic". Blimey! That turned out longer that I set out to ... I set out to give a little pointer towards resistant starch as an interesting curveball for you, Brian.
|
|
exapno
Shave Master
Posts: 108
|
Post by exapno on Jan 3, 2014 14:36:26 GMT -6
Found it..!
Dr. David Reuben continues... "...Refining means to make "pure" by a process of extraction or separation. Sugars are refined by taking a natural food, which contains a high percentage of sugar, and then removing all elements of that food until only the sugar remains. ...While sugar is commonly made from sugar cane or sugar beets. Through heating and mechanical and chemical processing, all vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, enzymes and indeed every nutrient is removed until only the sugar remains. Sugar cane and sugar beets are first harvested and then chopped into small pieces, squeezing out the juice, which is then mixed with water. This liquid is then heated, and lime is added. Moisture is boiled away, and the remaining fluid is pumped into vacuum pans to concentrate the juice. By this time, the liquid is starting to crystallize, and is ready to be placed into a centrifuge machine where any remaining residues (like molasses) are spun away. The crystals are then dissolved by heating to the boiling point and passed through charcoal filters. After the crystals condense, they are bleached snow-white usually by the use of pork or cattle bones. ...During the refining process, 64 food elements are destroyed. All the potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, manganese, phosphate, and sulfate are removed. The A, D, and B, vitamins are destroyed. Amino acids, vital enzymes, unsaturated fats, and all fiber are gone. To a lesser or greater degree, all refined sweeteners such as corn syrup, maple syrup, etc., undergo similar destructive processes. Molasses is the chemical and deranged nutrients that is a byproduct of sugar manufacture. ...Sugar manufacturers are aggressive in defending their product and have a strong political lobby which allows them to continue selling a deadly food item that by all reason should not be allowed in the American diet. ...If you have any doubts as to the detriments of sugar (sucrose), try leaving it out of your diet for several weeks and see if it makes a difference! You may also notice you have acquired an addiction and experience some withdrawal symptoms. ...Studies show that "sugar" is just as habit-forming as any narcotic; and its use, misuse, and abuse is our nation's number one disaster. It is no wonder when we consider all the products we consume daily which are loaded with sugar! The average healthy digestive system can digest and eliminate from two to four teaspoons of sugar daily, usually without noticeable problems, (that is if damage is not already present). One 12 oz. Cola contains 11 teaspoons of sugar, and that's aside from the caffeine. It's the sugar that gives you quick energy, but only for a brief time due to the rise of the blood sugar level. But the body quickly releases a rush of insulin, which rapidly lowers the blood sugar and causes a significant drop in energy and endurance."
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on Jan 4, 2014 2:34:42 GMT -6
Well there definitely has been a passionate thread kick started here!
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Jan 5, 2014 12:57:59 GMT -6
While we're on sugar, there's a chap called Ray Peat who writes a lot about the virtues of "Mexican Cola" and Gummy Bears. Mexican Cola is like our Cola (UK) - it's sugar and flavourings, Gummy Bears are sugar and gelatine. Peat is a fan of sugar. I'm not (convinced).
Give me fish flesh and the fats therein ...
|
|
SharpSpine
Master Shaver
My Flavor Sabre
Posts: 1,151
|
Post by SharpSpine on Jan 7, 2014 22:13:54 GMT -6
Sugar can be recognized easily as the largest contributor to the rapid decline in human health. Everything from obesity, to diabetes, to cancer can be shown to of a direct relationship to sugar. Ever since fats have been branded as the enemy and carbs became the largest source of calories all sorts of chronic illnesses have been labeled. We need to get back to high fat and low carb. Typically when you see everyone doing something it is probably a good idea to do the opposite.
|
|