Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
0 -
deleted
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I think when people say they eliminate sugar they mean processed sugar. I know that's what I mean when I say it.
It triggers migraines for me if eaten in overabundance. I rarely indulge.
Notice the key word in that phrase. I went ahead and bolded it.0 -
"tennisdude2004 wrote: »The point of the thread was (and this is only my opinion and I did use the word possibly) sugar is a quick fix to reduce in order to get into a deficit.
For some people, it probably is. My guess is that plenty of others have other issues.It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't want to reduce protein and I wouldn't want to reduce fat as both are essential macro nutrients and reducing either may reduce my required Micro nutrients (they may not, but at least with sugar there is no second guessing).
But isn't it better to just understand your own diet and what you are eating rather than focusing on a quick fix that might not be applicable? I can think of lots of examples of people eating lots of fat and even protein-containing foods that would still be a sensible place to start with a reduction. For example, if you are Deirdre's person who thinks she is eating in moderation, saying "oh, my daily KFC and 500 calorie slices of pizza aren't a problem, except maybe I should add some pepperoni to that pizza for protein" would hardly be the answer!
Of course, I also don't understand most of what goes on on the Chit Chat forum, so maybe I'm just weird. ;-)
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
0 -
miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic-1 -
there is incidental carbohydrates, i already wrote that. and even if i'm getting half a gram of carbs for every gram of soluble fiber i consume (worst case scenario?), my total carbs is still going to be well south of 30 grams.0
-
tigersword wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I think when people say they eliminate sugar they mean processed sugar. I know that's what I mean when I say it.
It triggers migraines for me if eaten in overabundance. I rarely indulge.
Notice the key word in that phrase. I went ahead and bolded it.
Yes, but the whole problem with this thread is that it's a relative term and everyone is talking around each other. I'm staying out of the whole thing. I see enough petty bickering with my kids.
I do what works for me and my body. I don't see why that's a problem for other people to leave everyone else do too.
0 -
miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You're also not insisting that everyone else needs to do what you do, so I don't see what the problem is. You're just weighing in with your personal experience.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I'm certainly not demonizing sugar, I'm not promoting it either.
It serves a purpose and that's it. From a nutrient point of view it's neutral.
The point of the thread was (and this is only my opinion and I did use the word possibly) sugar is a quick fix to reduce in order to get into a deficit.
I am not saying don't eat sugar, in fact I did say that once you are in a deficit there is no need to reduce it any further.
It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't want to reduce protein and I wouldn't want to reduce fat as both are essential macro nutrients and reducing either may reduce my required Micro nutrients (they may not, but at least with sugar there is no second guessing).
Again not loving something doesn't automatically mean you hate it!
Sadly there is too much one dimensional thinking on the general forums. I was going to say on MFP in general, but have you seen some of the creative thinking on the Chit Chat forums?
To be fair, there are only 2 essential fatty acids, and you only need a grand total of 17 grams of them. In fact, one of Lyle McDonald's (self admittedly extreme and short term) diets calls for only consuming about that much fat in supplements, and none through food.
Protein is really the only macro I wouldn't cut, but even then, plenty of people on this site go Way overboard on protein, too.0 -
miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.-1 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »:flowerforyou: I'll ask one thing:
Next time someone asks: "I'm doing IIFYM how should I set them?" We'll all answer and provide them the support they need to do that well.
The next time someone says: "I'm doing Low carb and looking for support", or "I'm looking to cut back on added sugar". We'll all answer their actual questions and provide the support they need to do that well.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
What typically happens?
IIFYM macros questions get IFFYM answers
Low carb, or low added sugar questions get IIFYM folks saying "just do IIFYM", or "why demonize?" "I eat all the foods just in moderation" or what not...
in other words: "don't do what you want to do, do what I'm doing, because obviously I know better for you"
Imagine if we (those doing something other than your version of IIFYM) went into the "what should my macros be" threads and said "just count carbs" or "just cut back added sugars?" Unhelpful, and disrespectful.
and, finally, we're all doing IIFYM to an extent. I just also focus a lot on MICROS (and creating a long term healthstyle. so more of a IIFMH), and those doing low carb just have THEIR MACROS set different than YOURS (for their own healthstyle). Because it's not about you.
What a wonderful world.
:drinker:
If only this is what really happens. Nobody goes into a low carb thread and pushes IIFYM for the sake of it. People suggest it when an OP states that they are going low carb specifically for weight loss, and are under the erroneous assumption that it's necessary to go low carb for weight loss.
Not everyone going low carb is doing it because they want to. And most of them don't even need to, but someone told them that's how they have to lose weight, so that's what they try to do. Then they struggle, because they don't enjoy the restriction, then they fail, then they post looking for advice. I try to tailor advice to what the OP wants to accomplish, based on info provided. I don't just blindly agree or disagree with any one plan or idea.
False. But then, I knew that would be the response.
Again, I'll ask you to look around. Look at the beginnings of low carb threads even ones just asking for friends.
Just a quick search...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1458451/low-carb-and-vegan
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10001104/low-carb/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1447754/low-carb
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10005826/low-carb-diet0 -
baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?0 -
baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.0 -
baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.
of course, there are those that live in reality and those that live in a fantasy world where all sorts of magical things happen0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation and elimination, for me, are just opposite sides to the same coin.
Both are restriction based, both require sacrifice, self discipline and self control.
Both are practical and sustainable for some, both are difficult and unsustainable for others.
...
So both are good and both work - is one better than the other? Not as far as I am concerned!
^This.
/thread
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »:flowerforyou: I'll ask one thing:
Next time someone asks: "I'm doing IIFYM how should I set them?" We'll all answer and provide them the support they need to do that well.
The next time someone says: "I'm doing Low carb and looking for support", or "I'm looking to cut back on added sugar". We'll all answer their actual questions and provide the support they need to do that well.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
What typically happens?
IIFYM macros questions get IFFYM answers
Low carb, or low added sugar questions get IIFYM folks saying "just do IIFYM", or "why demonize?" "I eat all the foods just in moderation" or what not...
in other words: "don't do what you want to do, do what I'm doing, because obviously I know better for you"
Imagine if we (those doing something other than your version of IIFYM) went into the "what should my macros be" threads and said "just count carbs" or "just cut back added sugars?" Unhelpful, and disrespectful.
and, finally, we're all doing IIFYM to an extent. I just also focus a lot on MICROS (and creating a long term healthstyle. so more of a IIFMH), and those doing low carb just have THEIR MACROS set different than YOURS (for their own healthstyle). Because it's not about you.
What a wonderful world.
:drinker:
People usually say things like "you don't have to eliminate *insert fad here* if you don't want to" - because lots of new people think of dieting has to be a certain way (boiled chicken and salads). I know I did. So it was *very* helpful to me to learn that I could eat what I wanted provided that it fit into my carb/protein/fat goals. It's what convinced me that I could actually do this and be successful.
Most people that post what I said above aren't doing so in a "neener, neener" or a smug "I can eat whatever I want" way. It's genuine education to maybe make this dieting thing easier on the OP. I can't imagine going into this whole process thinking I couldn't eat bread again, ever. I'm certain I would have failed miserably. Some people have success eliminating things - that's great. But are they doing it because Dr. Oz told them to, because they think that's the easiest way to lose and get healthy or because they've read (on here) how terrible and addictive sugar is and that you'll have the BEST success cutting it?0 -
baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.
of course, there are those that live in reality and those that live in a fantasy world where all sorts of magical things happen
Fantasy world? Speaking of yourself?
For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place.
So only added sugars cause cravings, how do you isolate that against all the other sugars in said product? And how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose? Since n=1 are there any studies with large sample sizes that have found this to be true as well?0 -
Stunning that people can't grasp the idea of moderation so here's a nice easy example - seasonal as well.....
Moderation: Advent calendar - open one window a day, eat a small piece of chocolate.
Not moderation: Eating a huge bar of chocolate that takes you way over your TDEE.
Elimination: Never eating chocolate.
Great, let's bring religion into the debate, too.
Just kidding. The example is actually pretty good.0 -
Diedre, I am coming late to this conversation, and it seems to be thoroughly polarized, rehashed, and reheated now.
I don't interpret "moderation" as "recommended serving size". If I am on a calorie deficit, I typically take half of what is recommended. I also save those craves (KFC, Pizza) one day at a time. One slice of pizza with a salad, for instance. If done this way, it is very possible to stay within the calorie limits for the day.0 -
Late to the party, but I am still trying to comprehend how someone doesn't know what moderation is....lol. Here is how I break it down. Based on the "moderation" diet that was originally posted that wasn't actually moderation...the key in moderation for me is that meeting my macros is my #1 WANT. After that, the wants like posted in that days worth of food can be put in if there is room.0
-
tigersword wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I'm certainly not demonizing sugar, I'm not promoting it either.
It serves a purpose and that's it. From a nutrient point of view it's neutral.
The point of the thread was (and this is only my opinion and I did use the word possibly) sugar is a quick fix to reduce in order to get into a deficit.
I am not saying don't eat sugar, in fact I did say that once you are in a deficit there is no need to reduce it any further.
It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't want to reduce protein and I wouldn't want to reduce fat as both are essential macro nutrients and reducing either may reduce my required Micro nutrients (they may not, but at least with sugar there is no second guessing).
Again not loving something doesn't automatically mean you hate it!
Sadly there is too much one dimensional thinking on the general forums. I was going to say on MFP in general, but have you seen some of the creative thinking on the Chit Chat forums?
To be fair, there are only 2 essential fatty acids, and you only need a grand total of 17 grams of them. In fact, one of Lyle McDonald's (self admittedly extreme and short term) diets calls for only consuming about that much fat in supplements, and none through food.
Protein is really the only macro I wouldn't cut, but even then, plenty of people on this site go Way overboard on protein, too.
Yep - there are, but as my intake of fat is delivering some of my micro nutrients I choose to focus on some of the more sugary foods (the likes of sweets and sugary drinks). I don't cut them out (I did then re-introduced the ones i wanted) and I'm not advising anyone to cut them out (as I have made clean this is not an elimination thread) - just suggesting they are a good place for newbies to aim at cutting back on to get into a calorie deficit, without possibly affecting any of their micros!
0 -
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
I've demonstrated over 190 days how I work treats into my diet as I want them or as they fit. You log it, you make sure it fits into your day before you eat it, and then you eat it. Not really sure where the lack of understanding is coming from.
I also eliminated gluten unrelated to weight management. I gained weight while eating gluten, lost weight while eating gluten, maintained my weight while not eating gluten, gained while not eating gluten, and am losing again while not eating gluten. Has nothing to do with removing an "allergen" (I've not been tested, but for these purposes it basically acts as an allergen) and all to do with caloric intake. And as I already noted, removing an allergen is not the same as removing something because you think it will make you gain weight or you think it will help you lose weight. And like lemur pointed out too, to not eat foods you dislike or don't want to eat anymore, that is not eliminating because you don't want to eat them. I don't really like to eat wings, with the exception of these reaaally delicious homemade wings my mom makes with brown sugar and soy sauce. So if these are made I eat them. But otherwise, I don't really like how other wings taste so I rarely eat them. Not moderation, not elimination, simply eating what I desire when I can.
If I eat a 230 calorie muffin, this gives me carb and fat macros. How does this not help to fulfill one's macronutrient needs?0 -
tigersword wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I'm certainly not demonizing sugar, I'm not promoting it either.
It serves a purpose and that's it. From a nutrient point of view it's neutral.
The point of the thread was (and this is only my opinion and I did use the word possibly) sugar is a quick fix to reduce in order to get into a deficit.
I am not saying don't eat sugar, in fact I did say that once you are in a deficit there is no need to reduce it any further.
It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't want to reduce protein and I wouldn't want to reduce fat as both are essential macro nutrients and reducing either may reduce my required Micro nutrients (they may not, but at least with sugar there is no second guessing).
Again not loving something doesn't automatically mean you hate it!
Sadly there is too much one dimensional thinking on the general forums. I was going to say on MFP in general, but have you seen some of the creative thinking on the Chit Chat forums?
To be fair, there are only 2 essential fatty acids, and you only need a grand total of 17 grams of them. In fact, one of Lyle McDonald's (self admittedly extreme and short term) diets calls for only consuming about that much fat in supplements, and none through food.
Protein is really the only macro I wouldn't cut, but even then, plenty of people on this site go Way overboard on protein, too.
Your calories have to come from somewhere. If you go and don't eat fat you'll have to eat more protein and carbs to get to your calorie goal, if you also cut carbs you have to eat even more protein. You can't have your cake and eat it too with this kind of thing. Less of one means more of another. Or way too low calories.0 -
baconslave wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation and elimination, for me, are just opposite sides to the same coin.
Both are restriction based, both require sacrifice, self discipline and self control.
Both are practical and sustainable for some, both are difficult and unsustainable for others.
...
So both are good and both work - is one better than the other? Not as far as I am concerned!
^This.
/thread
Except I don't view eating my donut tomorrow instead of today as sacrifice, because I'm still eating the donut within a period of time that I'll want it and I'm still eating other foos I love just as much. So this is why I do not eliminate (i.e. never eat) foods that I love with the exception of anything that basically results in allergenic responses.0 -
The reason for elimination doesn't really matter. You proved that elimination doesn't mean there will be an inevitable binge, much less subsequent weight gain. Foods can be eliminated without the much ballyhooed dire consequences. I've done it, too. Others have as well. That probably won't stop people from saying that if you eliminate things, a binge is unavoidable. They'll probably still go on with the, "If you eliminate something, then you will binge on it and gain weight!" but at least we know better.
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
I've demonstrated over 190 days how I work treats into my diet as I want them or as they fit. You log it, you make sure it fits into your day before you eat it, and then you eat it. Not really sure where the lack of understanding is coming from.
I also eliminated gluten unrelated to weight management. I gained weight while eating gluten, lost weight while eating gluten, maintained my weight while not eating gluten, gained while not eating gluten, and am losing again while not eating gluten. Has nothing to do with removing an "allergen" (I've not been tested, but for these purposes it basically acts as an allergen) and all to do with caloric intake. And as I already noted, removing an allergen is not the same as removing something because you think it will make you gain weight or you think it will help you lose weight. And like lemur pointed out too, to not eat foods you dislike or don't want to eat anymore, that is not eliminating because you don't want to eat them. I don't really like to eat wings, with the exception of these reaaally delicious homemade wings my mom makes with brown sugar and soy sauce. So if these are made I eat them. But otherwise, I don't really like how other wings taste so I rarely eat them. Not moderation, not elimination, simply eating what I desire when I can.
If I eat a 230 calorie muffin, this gives me carb and fat macros. How does this not help to fulfill one's macronutrient needs?
I don't know about your muffin. You've stumped me! How does it not? Or how does it? I feel I am about to learn so much more.
0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions