I’ve constantly thought about this over and over.Would there be any side effects, and how long would they last?
Depends what you mean by sugar: do you mean just sucrose (table sugar), glucose (found in candy bars and sweets along with sucrose) or lactose (in milk), fructose (in fruit), dextrose, maltose etc. etc., or do you mean all carbohydrates (e.g. bread, rice, potatoes) - all of the above get broken down by your digestive system into glucose, which defines your blood sugar level.
If it was just sucrose you were cutting out, simple answer is, you might lose weight, and there would be no likelihood of ill effect. If you cut out all carbohydrates, you’d be emulating parts of the Atkins diet which I have been following, and on which I’ve lost two stone two (30lbs), but which has caused controversy. I could give you more info about totally eliminating carbohydrates from your diet, but this post might turn in to a train wreck.
It depends on what you mean by “sugar”. If you mean “refined table-type sugar”, then nothing, except a lot fewer calories going into the old spare tire. If you mean all other sugars, such as corn sweeteners, then…nothing, except even fewer calories going into the old spare tire. So long as the rest of your diet is well-balanced.
However…being a diabetic and having to track these things, I would suggest that perhaps you look to foods with very high glycemic indices, as opposed to just sugar. Maybe reducing intake of these is something you want to do. White rice impacts my body much more seriously than refined sugar does, by trial over years of experience. Pasta as well.
Of course, you didn’t say why you were interested or what your goal was, so who knows if that is even something you ought to consider.
Now there’s a simulpost…but I started typing first, I swear. 
Ok, I’ll be more specific, the sugar I was considering was glucose and sucrose.
I’ve done this myself - mainly to keep my teeth in good shape. After a while you tend not to miss all the sweet stuff, like chocolate, sugar in tea/coffee etc.
The added benefit, apart from the weight loss, is that I find I tend to have a more even energy level during the day. I found before in the middle of the afternoon after eating sweet stuff at lunch, I’d be feeling quite sleepy, and I dont get that now.
Well, uh, nil, if you mean eliminating the sugar from your coffee.
But, if you wanted to eliminate all sugar from your diet, you would have to eliminate most fruits. If you stop eating oranges, pumpkins, tomatoes, bell peppers, and so on {insert here enormous list of fruits that contain sugar}, then you start to run into a vitamin deficiency and lack of fibre situation. Then, you need to start taking vitamin pills and fibre supplements.
Why bother?
Is there any basis to back that up? I have had times where I have felt quite sleepy in the middle of the day as well.
The “basis” is that every person has a different body response to fluctuating blood glucose levels throughout the day. And a different curve of fluctuation as well, depending on both diet and exercise/activity level. While his experience is valid, it may not apply to anyone else.
Just do it and find out. No one else is going to be able to tell you with certainty what is going to happen to energy levels for you on this message Board.
\
You can get your vitamins and fibre from vegetables. You don’t have to eat fruit to get them.
OTOH, why anybody would give up green peppers (vegetable AFAIK), bananas and oranges I dunno, but they are not necessary. Oranges for example are high in vitamin C, but so are your leafy vegetables.
It’s just that the word “vegetable” is a grocery term. It has no scientific meaning. A red pepper is the fruit of the pepper plant. That part of a plant that contains the seeds is the fruit. The distinction between fruits and vegetables is one that is hazy at best and in a discussion like this has little value, I think. At the very least, it muddies the waters. e.g. “You can get your vitamins and fibre from vegetables. You don’t have to eat fruit to get them.” I guess the term “green, leafy vegetables” has an agreed upon meaning, although as we know, it sometimes refers to broccoli, which is the flowers of that plant. It’s all so confusing. Naw, now that I think of it, common usage is all that counts. Never mind.
Good point CC. I am not a botanist, I just buy my fruits and veges from a grocery store.
I love alot of fruits and “sugary” type of vege/fruits, whatever classification they are. Watermelon, cantelope, honeydew, grapes, oranges… etc, YUM!
Interestingly, I guess red peppers/green peppers ARE considered a fruit: From this site:
I’m not giving them up though. 
I love both fruits and veges.
I wouldn’t suggest giving up fruits/veges. Processed sugars yes. Get rid of all that crap. 
(I say that, yet every weekend I eat two or three oatmeal cookies…
I am weak)
I thought the difference in the definition of fruits and vegetables was that ‘fruits’ are those parts of the plant that contain seeds while ‘vegetables’ where those plants whose edible parts did NOT contain seeds (roots, leaves, etc).
From Cecil’s Mailbag:
What’s the difference between fruits and vegetables?
I try to avoid table sugar and sweets. I do have more energy, I don’t get the “sugar highs” that I once did, and I don’t crave sugary foods. I don’t think I’ve experienced any negative effects.
Sugar highs? Could be more explanitory please?(I’m not being sarcastic or awkward)
From Debunking the myth of the sugar high
misconceptions about the notorious “sugar high” probably come from treats containing stimulants such as the caffeine in chocolate.
Thanks, Qadgop. And adding to the myth is probably the large amount of anecdotal “data” from moms whose kids came home from Halloween trick or treating, or from birthday parties, and figured that they must be buzzed from all the sweets - instead of from the excitement of the circumstances. xo CC.
This is what worries me about this study:
So because a few week/month study of people that were on a high sugar diet didn’t get diabetes, sugar is safe and eating it has no side effects. Yeah. Sorry, from duke university or not I just am not buying it.
Try feeding these people 80% sugar diets for 20 years, I bet there will be a nice group of diabetics forming. Unless of course they divide up their 80% calories from sugar over a nice 8 small meals in a day. (thats cheating though, what percent of the population eats like that?) *as a note, I do.
Yeah, but an 80% sugar diet is not realistic either. 
Again, it depends on what you mean by sugar, but after a few weeks or days of cutting out most of it you will develop “sugar hunger”. It is a very strong drive for sweets of any kind. I do not know if it is a sign of being unhealthy or not, but it is something you should be aware of.