Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
Just because you don't "love" a food doesn't mean it "tastes like ****" (to use your eloquent example).
There are some who casually eat calorically dense foods, but can do without them quite easily, in order to obtain a greater deficit.
I was just trying to clarify if the poster felt that those individuals were making an improper choice by practicing exclusion, instead of moderation.
But thanks for answering for her (unless you're a sock).0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
Just because you don't "love" a food doesn't mean it "tastes like ****" (to use your eloquent example).
Where did anybody claim otherwise?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
I gave you your answer. But let's rehash.
I stopped eating the added-sugar foods. I already determined, from my observations of my eating habits, that foods with natural sugars only do not cause those "cravings" (feelings). (Which I did say a few posts up in that quote-maze-from-hell.) I started eating keto. I stopped eating the foods I suspected triggered cravings; the cravings stopped. I have continued for 6 months eating at keto macros and eliminating those foods. The cravings have not returned. Cravings that plagued me and fueled binges for 17 years. I haven't written a paper on it. There is no evidence I could produce to you that you would accept in any case. And had I a personal lab crew who submitted a study to a peer-reviewed publication, and it somehow magically met the criteria for significance and accuracy, you would still refute it.
Now if you actually wanted to analyze my experience further, you could criticize that the increase in protein and fat, to offset the decrease in carbs, had a role to play. Perhaps. The phase of the experiment in which I increase natural-sugar carbs while still restricting added sugars is an investigation I'm leaving for maintenance. Perhaps, further out, I will be satisfied with my data for that phase and add back added sugars. Or not. At any rate, I still have weight to lose. What I'm currently doing is working, (no cravings, no binges) and I remain at a deficit, so I'm satisfied with my current progress and am content to leave that data-gathering for a later time. After all correlation does not equal causation. But from the data gleaned thus far, it's looking like added-sugar foods do have a link with cravings. For me. Proving causation is a trickier beast and will require more information over time. We may never achieve anything greater than an extremely strong correlation. But in practical application, which is real life, I'm not overeating for the first time in 17 years. And calorie deficit is the important result I am aiming to achieve. There is something to be said for results. How I personally achieve them is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. We don't walk around our whole lives in a scientific paper.
How's that?
I'm not finding any studies yet that confirm this phenomenon in large sample sizes, however. I suppose that my experiences haven't happened since there is no study. Oh well. I'll keep at it and keep losing weight without being plagued by the annoyance of the uncontrollable feeling like I need to rabidly binge constantly. Maybe one day it will be validated by a panel of scientists, but soon I'll hit maintenance and continue the next great experiment. In any case, I'll keep living my life, following this current plan, and I'll be healthy and a healthy weight. Wins, scientific validation or no.
Well, it all makes perfect sense to me, and as I'm the one who's satisfaction matters here, that's that. I'm off to do something productive. Like let Jillian Michaels try to kill me. Have a fine remainder of your day, perhaps despite some bleeding you may be experiencing from your eyes as the result of reading the answer you desired.
Yes, Sabine. This is a silly, silly board.
-1 -
I think the difference here is that she replaced gluten with gluten free variations. She didn't eliminate bread, she just changed the type of bread she eats. So, it's more akin to someone cutting out glucose and replacing it with lactose. Not really elimination, just substitution.LiminalAscendance wrote: »
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.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
To me, the reasoning for cutting something out doesn't change the fact that you eliminated a lot of things and have been successful. Not sure why it would be unsuccessful for people wanting to eliminate added sugars. Many people cut them out thinking that is what causes them cravings....so what? Whether or not it's a placebo effect or not, if it works it works.
And this is from an IIFYM'r that doesn't eliminate anything. Your argument just isn't on point.
I did eliminate beets...cause...blech.0 -
By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
This. I find it bizarre when people say that. There are tons of foods I don't eat, but that doesn't mean I eliminated them.
I really do think that a lot of this "argument" is just because people have contrasting definitions of "elimination."0 -
If there is any particular issue with elimination it is whether it creates a sustained deprivation mindset or is particularly severe (which makes it likely the pendulum will swing the other way and bingeing is triggered or created.)
People eliminate food items all the time without dramatic consequences for religious or moral reasons for example. Those foods may even taste very good to them yet there is nowhere near the psychological impact. Why? Because the perceived deprivation is either low or made manageable by positive associations: being closer to god or feelings of morality.
So, elimination in dieting, even of very tasty items is not necessarily a bad thing or an unmanageable thing. It obviously depends on the individual clearly and their reaction. It may be a problem, it may not be.
A particular issue lies in when you put deprivation in a straight fight with willpower (like most traditional dieting). That is an abject failure as in the long term deprivation will kick the *kitten* of willpower and over eating will be the likely result. That is why newer thinking on weight regulation seeks to reduce suffering and the need for willpower to the lowest level possible. We are just not designed to be miserable for long periods without breaking.0 -
A particular issue lies in when you put deprivation in a straight fight with willpower (like most traditional dieting). That is an abject failure as in the long term deprivation will kick the *kitten* of willpower and over eating will be the likely result. That is why newer thinking on weight regulation seeks to reduce suffering and the need for willpower to the lowest level possible. We are just not designed to be miserable for long periods without breaking.
Good post! (By which I mean "I agree with that," of course.) ;-)
I especially agree with the last bit. Even if you don't feel miserable, if you rely on white knuckling it too much you will break because some day you'll be tired or depressed or just have used up all your will power getting a huge work project done or not losing it with your teenager.
So (not that I have everything figured out!), I think a lot of this is finding a strategy so you are relying on other things and having your way of eating be second nature. IMO, eliminating is not necessarily inconsistent with that--I know lots of successful vegetarians, after all, and some who keep kosher, and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
But it's still true that some people seem to be calling things "elimination" that I wouldn't!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
You've sure got it all figured out. Remind me again how long this has worked for you?
Well over six months without any difficulties. And in those six months I've not once felt deprived because I ate the donut I wanted today, tomorrow. I wanted a 3rd helping of baked oatmeal last night, couldn't without not meeting my protein needs, so I ate it for breakfast this morning. Was very delicious.
Not once have I binged, either. Although within the same time frame when I "ate clean" and purposely eliminated food, I did binge on the "bad" food quite often. I was actually at one point binging on a few boxes of chocolate every weekend for months, I'm surprised I didn't gain that much weight in the process.
Six whole months. Fabulous.
Hope it carries you through grad school (or school), marriage, babies, grief, illnesses menopause and all that life has to offer.
Look, this may be the best thing since sliced bread (with hfcs). It may be the best fit for you. It may merely be a psychological thing for you. Which makes it no less real.
But it's foolish to think you've got it all figured out. For everyone. And that you can "school" folks (per the ignore feature thread where you're thrilled to be able to show people that you know more), on what's "best".
You're doing great! WONDERFUL. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But really, I worry that the maiden doth protest too much....
Considering I've had more success with this approach in six months than I did in the same time-frame of cutting out foods I loved, I am fairly certain it will work just fine. To basically claim that half a year's worth of experience eating a certain way, and happily, does not demonstrate its likely merit, is pre-emptive. Especially since I was fairly unhappy eliminating food and being strict with myself within the same time frame.
Again, GREAT. And I hope it keeps working for you throughout your life. But it's fool hardy to proclaim it the BEST way for all at every point in their lives. Which you regularly do.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
So if I say malbec causes my migraines I need evidence?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
This. I find it bizarre when people say that. There are tons of foods I don't eat, but that doesn't mean I eliminated them.
I really do think that a lot of this "argument" is just because people have contrasting definitions of "elimination."
Quite possibly.0 -
Why is that, do you think? Is it because it's coupled with a deficit? or purely psychological?lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Why is that, do you think? Is it because it's coupled with a deficit? or purely psychological?lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
It is both physiological and psychological but ultimately all dieting, to my mind, involves fighting your body rather than working with it to give up something it finds valuable: fat.
Sadly, the best solution seems to be not getting fat in the first place...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
IMO that's because you're not giving your body the stuff it needs to run best, instead hooking it on things that cause cravings.
To paraphrase Yoda, "Cravings lead to suffering. Suffering leads to bingeing. Bingeing leads to fat!"0 -
You could be right... and for me the best alternative solution is to try to limit cravings in the first place.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Why is that, do you think? Is it because it's coupled with a deficit? or purely psychological?lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
It is both physiological and psychological but ultimately all dieting, to my mind, involves fighting your body rather than working with it to give up something it finds valuable: fat.
Sadly, the best solution seems to be not getting fat in the first place...
Good luck! and I love your avatar!
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »To paraphrase Yoda, "Cravings lead to suffering. Suffering leads to bingeing. Bingeing leads to fat!"
Anytime I went too long (10+ hours) without eating something or couldn't get any sleep (stayed up for longer than 30 hours.) I would 'crave' bread or sugary foods but that was just because it was something high calorie that I knew about.
I later found that I could drink some water and eat pretty much anything to make the 'cravings' go away, my brain just wanted me to eat something. If only I had discovered that sooner.
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »
To paraphrase Yoda, "Cravings lead to suffering. Suffering leads to bingeing. Bingeing leads to fat!"
I think bingeing in the context of dieting is a massive problem, in fact it may be the issue.
I do wonder if in 50 years or so we will look back at this period of our evolution and mankind will shake its head in sadness at the psychological damage that was inflicted on so many simply because they wanted to be slimmer...
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
You could be right... and for me the best alternative solution is to try to limit cravings in the first place.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Why is that, do you think? Is it because it's coupled with a deficit? or purely psychological?lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
It is both physiological and psychological but ultimately all dieting, to my mind, involves fighting your body rather than working with it to give up something it finds valuable: fat.
Sadly, the best solution seems to be not getting fat in the first place...
Good luck! and I love your avatar!
Well, yes, limiting cravings certainly seems like a good idea!
Thank you, you as well. It's been a number of years now since I have had to worry about calories or the like (other than racing related goals) so it seems I have managed to "reset" myself. I managed to maintain for 17 years before that so I am hoping for a similar run this time round
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
You could be right... and for me the best alternative solution is to try to limit cravings in the first place.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Why is that, do you think? Is it because it's coupled with a deficit? or purely psychological?lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
It is both physiological and psychological but ultimately all dieting, to my mind, involves fighting your body rather than working with it to give up something it finds valuable: fat.
Sadly, the best solution seems to be not getting fat in the first place...
Good luck! and I love your avatar!
Well, yes, limiting cravings certainly seems like a good idea!
Thank you, you as well. It's been a number of years now since I have had to worry about calories or the like (other than racing related goals) so it seems I have managed to "reset" myself. I managed to maintain for 17 years before that so I am hoping for a similar run this time round
17 years is fabulous!
I'll be at 14 years maintaining in March.
And yes, limiting cravings helps a ton.0 -
baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25322305
This is proof that added sugars act differently (are more stressful) in the body than naturally occurring sugar. The sucrose-added soda made telomeres shorter, while the same amount of fructose naturally occurring in the fruit juice made the telomeres longer. The sugar from a can of pop acts differently (more inflammatory) than the sugar in a salad.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
Drinking pop is associated with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, eating carrots isn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Sugar can cause cravings, especially when consumed in deprivation/binge cycles
"Based on the observed behavioral and neurochemical similarities between the effects of intermittent sugar access and drugs of abuse, we suggest that sugar, as common as it is, nonetheless meets the criteria for a substance of abuse and may be “addictive” for some individuals when consumed in a “binge-like” manner. This conclusion is reinforced by the changes in limbic system neurochemistry that are similar for the drugs and for sugar. "
" Several studies have correlated the rise in the incidence of obesity with an increase in sugar consumption (Bray et al., 1992, Elliott et al., 2002, Howard and Wylie-Rosett, 2002, Ludwig et al., 2001). The US Department of Agriculture has reported that per capita soft-drink consumption has increased by almost 500% in the past 50 years (Putnam and Allhouse, 1999). Sugar intake may lead to an increased number of and/or affinity for opioid receptors, which in turn leads to further ingestion of sugar and may contribute to obesity (Fullerton et al., 1985)"
"withdrawal from fat-bingeing is not as apparent as it is with sugar. Le Magnen (1990)"
"Craving-related changes in fMRI signal have been identified in response to palatable foods, similar to drug craving. This overlap occurred in the hippocampus, insula, and caudate (Pelchat et al., 2004). Similarly, PET scans reveal that obese subjects show a reduction in striatal D2 receptor availability that is associated with the body weight of the subject (Wang et al., 2004b). This decrease in D2 receptors in obese subjects is similar in magnitude to the reductions reported in drug-addicted subjects (Wang et al., 2001). The involvement of the DA system in reward and reinforcement has led to the hypothesis that alterations in DA activity in obese subjects dispose them to excessive use of food. Exposure to especially palatable foods, such as cake and ice cream, activates the several brain regions including the anterior insula and right orbitofrontal cortex (Wang et al., 2004a), which may underlie the motivation to procure food (Rolls, 2006)."
I you have no sugar-related cravings, I'm happy for you. But some people do, and there is scientific evidence backing up their experience. Restriction and elimination is not doomed to failure. The fact that some people can successfully eat gluten-free means that an elimination diet is possible, without triggering a binge. And for some people, restriction or elimination is necessary to lose weight (or to be more healthy). I respect that that may not be your experience. Please respect the experiences of others, and congratulate them on their successes.-1 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »LiminalAscendance wrote: »
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.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
Based on your response, would you consider the removal of "fast food," ice cream, and candy (for instance) from one's diet a valid method of weight loss, for an individual who does not "love" said foods?
If they do not love/like the food in the first place, they wouldn't be eating them. So this is not something they are eliminating because they aren't eating it in the first place.
I have never had an urge to eat at like... Taco Time or something. Me not eating there =/= me eliminating it from my diet if it's not something that I regularly consumed.0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »
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.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
To me, the reasoning for cutting something out doesn't change the fact that you eliminated a lot of things and have been successful. Not sure why it would be unsuccessful for people wanting to eliminate added sugars. Many people cut them out thinking that is what causes them cravings....so what? Whether or not it's a placebo effect or not, if it works it works.
And this is from an IIFYM'r that doesn't eliminate anything. Your argument just isn't on point.
I did eliminate beets...cause...blech.
I've eliminated glutinous versions of food and been successful and not farting and pooping on everyone all day.
I've not eliminated any other non-glutinous foods that I enjoy eating and I've been successful at losing weight.
I've eliminated any other non-glutinous foods that I enjoy eating in the past, binged, and was unsuccessful.
Only the latter 2 examples are related, while the first is not related, because it had absolutely nothing to do with weight loss.0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »LiminalAscendance wrote: »
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.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
Based on your response, would you consider the removal of "fast food," ice cream, and candy (for instance) from one's diet a valid method of weight loss, for an individual who does not "love" said foods?
If they do not love/like the food in the first place, they wouldn't be eating them. So this is not something they are eliminating because they aren't eating it in the first place.
I have never had an urge to eat at like... Taco Time or something. Me not eating there =/= me eliminating it from my diet if it's not something that I regularly consumed.
Lookie there, we agree on something. I GAVE UP candy, donuts, pastries etc. etc. etc. about 14 years ago. After a couple of weeks I didn't crave them. Now I actually don't like them. At ALL. So, yeah, it's not really eliminating those at all.
lol0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
IMO that's because you're not giving your body the stuff it needs to run best, instead hooking it on things that cause cravings.
To paraphrase Yoda, "Cravings lead to suffering. Suffering leads to bingeing. Bingeing leads to fat!"
I crave pomegranates and cherries when they are in season. Guess my body doesn't need these nutritious foods?
I also crave eggs. Guess my body doesn't run well on eggs.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25322305
This is proof that added sugars act differently (are more stressful) in the body than naturally occurring sugar. The sucrose-added soda made telomeres shorter, while the same amount of fructose naturally occurring in the fruit juice made the telomeres longer. The sugar from a can of pop acts differently (more inflammatory) than the sugar in a salad.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
Drinking pop is associated with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, eating carrots isn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Sugar can cause cravings, especially when consumed in deprivation/binge cycles
"Based on the observed behavioral and neurochemical similarities between the effects of intermittent sugar access and drugs of abuse, we suggest that sugar, as common as it is, nonetheless meets the criteria for a substance of abuse and may be “addictive” for some individuals when consumed in a “binge-like” manner. This conclusion is reinforced by the changes in limbic system neurochemistry that are similar for the drugs and for sugar. "
" Several studies have correlated the rise in the incidence of obesity with an increase in sugar consumption (Bray et al., 1992, Elliott et al., 2002, Howard and Wylie-Rosett, 2002, Ludwig et al., 2001). The US Department of Agriculture has reported that per capita soft-drink consumption has increased by almost 500% in the past 50 years (Putnam and Allhouse, 1999). Sugar intake may lead to an increased number of and/or affinity for opioid receptors, which in turn leads to further ingestion of sugar and may contribute to obesity (Fullerton et al., 1985)"
"withdrawal from fat-bingeing is not as apparent as it is with sugar. Le Magnen (1990)"
"Craving-related changes in fMRI signal have been identified in response to palatable foods, similar to drug craving. This overlap occurred in the hippocampus, insula, and caudate (Pelchat et al., 2004). Similarly, PET scans reveal that obese subjects show a reduction in striatal D2 receptor availability that is associated with the body weight of the subject (Wang et al., 2004b). This decrease in D2 receptors in obese subjects is similar in magnitude to the reductions reported in drug-addicted subjects (Wang et al., 2001). The involvement of the DA system in reward and reinforcement has led to the hypothesis that alterations in DA activity in obese subjects dispose them to excessive use of food. Exposure to especially palatable foods, such as cake and ice cream, activates the several brain regions including the anterior insula and right orbitofrontal cortex (Wang et al., 2004a), which may underlie the motivation to procure food (Rolls, 2006)."
I you have no sugar-related cravings, I'm happy for you. But some people do, and there is scientific evidence backing up their experience. Restriction and elimination is not doomed to failure. The fact that some people can successfully eat gluten-free means that an elimination diet is possible, without triggering a binge. And for some people, restriction or elimination is necessary to lose weight (or to be more healthy). I respect that that may not be your experience. Please respect the experiences of others, and congratulate them on their successes.
NHANES data for the first one, at least that has shown to be remotely accurate. Oh wait it's shown to be essentially worthless due to it's inaccuracy
Your next link is the Avena rat study? Are humans now rodents? Is the 12on/12off feeding protocol remotely similar to human eating behavior?
Drinking soda is associated with obesity? Also really weird sugar consumption peaked around '99, what happened to obesity rates since?
"But some people do, and there is scientific evidence backing up their experience."
LOL
Try again0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
I gave you your answer. But let's rehash.
I stopped eating the added-sugar foods. I already determined, from my observations of my eating habits, that foods with natural sugars only do not cause those "cravings" (feelings). (Which I did say a few posts up in that quote-maze-from-hell.) I started eating keto. I stopped eating the foods I suspected triggered cravings; the cravings stopped. I have continued for 6 months eating at keto macros and eliminating those foods. The cravings have not returned. Cravings that plagued me and fueled binges for 17 years. I haven't written a paper on it. There is no evidence I could produce to you that you would accept in any case. And had I a personal lab crew who submitted a study to a peer-reviewed publication, and it somehow magically met the criteria for significance and accuracy, you would still refute it.
Now if you actually wanted to analyze my experience further, you could criticize that the increase in protein and fat, to offset the decrease in carbs, had a role to play. Perhaps. The phase of the experiment in which I increase natural-sugar carbs while still restricting added sugars is an investigation I'm leaving for maintenance. Perhaps, further out, I will be satisfied with my data for that phase and add back added sugars. Or not. At any rate, I still have weight to lose. What I'm currently doing is working, (no cravings, no binges) and I remain at a deficit, so I'm satisfied with my current progress and am content to leave that data-gathering for a later time. After all correlation does not equal causation. But from the data gleaned thus far, it's looking like added-sugar foods do have a link with cravings. For me. Proving causation is a trickier beast and will require more information over time. We may never achieve anything greater than an extremely strong correlation. But in practical application, which is real life, I'm not overeating for the first time in 17 years. And calorie deficit is the important result I am aiming to achieve. There is something to be said for results. How I personally achieve them is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. We don't walk around our whole lives in a scientific paper.
How's that?
I'm not finding any studies yet that confirm this phenomenon in large sample sizes, however. I suppose that my experiences haven't happened since there is no study. Oh well. I'll keep at it and keep losing weight without being plagued by the annoyance of the uncontrollable feeling like I need to rabidly binge constantly. Maybe one day it will be validated by a panel of scientists, but soon I'll hit maintenance and continue the next great experiment. In any case, I'll keep living my life, following this current plan, and I'll be healthy and a healthy weight. Wins, scientific validation or no.
Well, it all makes perfect sense to me, and as I'm the one who's satisfaction matters here, that's that. I'm off to do something productive. Like let Jillian Michaels try to kill me. Have a fine remainder of your day, perhaps despite some bleeding you may be experiencing from your eyes as the result of reading the answer you desired.
Yes, Sabine. This is a silly, silly board.
Here’s your argument, I ate foods that contained “added sugars” and they caused cravings. I cut them out and the cravings stopped. Therefore, “added sugars” cause cravings.
LOL
First how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose, please be specific. Then how did you pinpoint "added sugar" as the culprit of your cravings? Was "Sugar" the only different compound in foods that made you have cravings and foods that did not cause cravings? If not, how did you determine that none of the different compounds or combination of compounds in the foods that gave you cravings vs those that did not, were not responsible?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »LiminalAscendance wrote: »LiminalAscendance wrote: »
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.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
Based on your response, would you consider the removal of "fast food," ice cream, and candy (for instance) from one's diet a valid method of weight loss, for an individual who does not "love" said foods?
If they do not love/like the food in the first place, they wouldn't be eating them. So this is not something they are eliminating because they aren't eating it in the first place.
I have never had an urge to eat at like... Taco Time or something. Me not eating there =/= me eliminating it from my diet if it's not something that I regularly consumed.
Lookie there, we agree on something. I GAVE UP candy, donuts, pastries etc. etc. etc. about 14 years ago. After a couple of weeks I didn't crave them. Now I actually don't like them. At ALL. So, yeah, it's not really eliminating those at all.
lol
Except you did eliminate them, 14 years ago. So at that point it was elimination. Our tastes change, so if after 14 years you've now consumed donuts, candy, pastries etc and you had to spit them all out because they were gross, then you are correct that you are not currently eliminating it because you do not enjoy it. HOwever, if you consumed all of these today and you enjoyed the taste, then that is eliminating them from your diet.
I haven't, however, given up any foods that I previously and still like. I've swapped out glutinous for non-glutinoous alternatives, but I still enjoy it and haven't given it up.
I eliminated eggs from my diet when I was a teenager because I discovered I was allergic to them. However, I ended up getting sick like... 3-4 years ago? Hospital and all that. So I was eating really soft, easy to eat foods, including eggs. When I ate them, I very much enjoyed them. I ate them for months afterwards without issue. I had to go to get blood tests done for months after my hospital stay, and at one point they did alergy testing well after the 6-week reintroduction of eggs, and I was no longer allergic to them. I have no idea how long I really was allergic to them, but because I still enjoyed them even after I cut them out and then reintroduced them, I had eliminated them. Had I eaten them while sick and thought they tasted gross nad then continued not eating them, this would simply be me not eating something I dislike, as lemur has talked about already.
However, if for example someone cuts out sugar because they think they will lose weight that way and then they eat it again months later, love it still, but force themselves to not eat it, that is an attempt at elimination. If someone decides for some reason to cut out bananas (I don't think anyone will argue about their nutritious benefits) and then months later still loves them but still refuses to eat them, this is elimination. Elimination doesn't just hold for less nutritious foods.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
I gave you your answer. But let's rehash.
I stopped eating the added-sugar foods. I already determined, from my observations of my eating habits, that foods with natural sugars only do not cause those "cravings" (feelings). (Which I did say a few posts up in that quote-maze-from-hell.) I started eating keto. I stopped eating the foods I suspected triggered cravings; the cravings stopped. I have continued for 6 months eating at keto macros and eliminating those foods. The cravings have not returned. Cravings that plagued me and fueled binges for 17 years. I haven't written a paper on it. There is no evidence I could produce to you that you would accept in any case. And had I a personal lab crew who submitted a study to a peer-reviewed publication, and it somehow magically met the criteria for significance and accuracy, you would still refute it.
Now if you actually wanted to analyze my experience further, you could criticize that the increase in protein and fat, to offset the decrease in carbs, had a role to play. Perhaps. The phase of the experiment in which I increase natural-sugar carbs while still restricting added sugars is an investigation I'm leaving for maintenance. Perhaps, further out, I will be satisfied with my data for that phase and add back added sugars. Or not. At any rate, I still have weight to lose. What I'm currently doing is working, (no cravings, no binges) and I remain at a deficit, so I'm satisfied with my current progress and am content to leave that data-gathering for a later time. After all correlation does not equal causation. But from the data gleaned thus far, it's looking like added-sugar foods do have a link with cravings. For me. Proving causation is a trickier beast and will require more information over time. We may never achieve anything greater than an extremely strong correlation. But in practical application, which is real life, I'm not overeating for the first time in 17 years. And calorie deficit is the important result I am aiming to achieve. There is something to be said for results. How I personally achieve them is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. We don't walk around our whole lives in a scientific paper.
How's that?
I'm not finding any studies yet that confirm this phenomenon in large sample sizes, however. I suppose that my experiences haven't happened since there is no study. Oh well. I'll keep at it and keep losing weight without being plagued by the annoyance of the uncontrollable feeling like I need to rabidly binge constantly. Maybe one day it will be validated by a panel of scientists, but soon I'll hit maintenance and continue the next great experiment. In any case, I'll keep living my life, following this current plan, and I'll be healthy and a healthy weight. Wins, scientific validation or no.
Well, it all makes perfect sense to me, and as I'm the one who's satisfaction matters here, that's that. I'm off to do something productive. Like let Jillian Michaels try to kill me. Have a fine remainder of your day, perhaps despite some bleeding you may be experiencing from your eyes as the result of reading the answer you desired.
Yes, Sabine. This is a silly, silly board.
Here’s your argument, I ate foods that contained “added sugars” and they caused cravings. I cut them out and the cravings stopped. Therefore, “added sugars” cause cravings.
LOL
First how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose, please be specific. Then how did you pinpoint "added sugar" as the culprit of your cravings? Was "Sugar" the only different compound in foods that made you have cravings and foods that did not cause cravings? If not, how did you determine that none of the different compounds or combination of compounds in the foods that gave you cravings vs those that did not, were not responsible?
Oh good, more nonsense. Well, enjoy that. I've reached my nonsense quota for today. I'll get back to you after 6mo or so when I've received all my data. And achieved my sexypants. Or not. In the meantime you should enjoy the creature comforts afforded you by your kitchen in your troll-cave nestled snuggly in your fantasy world. I'm not feeding you any more.
Do be a dear, though, and send that crack team of scientists and the key to the lab (which you are funding with the massive winnings from all your MFP bingos and your dividends from being an active member of the Shirtless-Brethren) before you go so we can get started on the research ASAP. Because the world is depending on us.-5 -
baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »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?
"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."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
I gave you your answer. But let's rehash.
I stopped eating the added-sugar foods. I already determined, from my observations of my eating habits, that foods with natural sugars only do not cause those "cravings" (feelings). (Which I did say a few posts up in that quote-maze-from-hell.) I started eating keto. I stopped eating the foods I suspected triggered cravings; the cravings stopped. I have continued for 6 months eating at keto macros and eliminating those foods. The cravings have not returned. Cravings that plagued me and fueled binges for 17 years. I haven't written a paper on it. There is no evidence I could produce to you that you would accept in any case. And had I a personal lab crew who submitted a study to a peer-reviewed publication, and it somehow magically met the criteria for significance and accuracy, you would still refute it.
Now if you actually wanted to analyze my experience further, you could criticize that the increase in protein and fat, to offset the decrease in carbs, had a role to play. Perhaps. The phase of the experiment in which I increase natural-sugar carbs while still restricting added sugars is an investigation I'm leaving for maintenance. Perhaps, further out, I will be satisfied with my data for that phase and add back added sugars. Or not. At any rate, I still have weight to lose. What I'm currently doing is working, (no cravings, no binges) and I remain at a deficit, so I'm satisfied with my current progress and am content to leave that data-gathering for a later time. After all correlation does not equal causation. But from the data gleaned thus far, it's looking like added-sugar foods do have a link with cravings. For me. Proving causation is a trickier beast and will require more information over time. We may never achieve anything greater than an extremely strong correlation. But in practical application, which is real life, I'm not overeating for the first time in 17 years. And calorie deficit is the important result I am aiming to achieve. There is something to be said for results. How I personally achieve them is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. We don't walk around our whole lives in a scientific paper.
How's that?
I'm not finding any studies yet that confirm this phenomenon in large sample sizes, however. I suppose that my experiences haven't happened since there is no study. Oh well. I'll keep at it and keep losing weight without being plagued by the annoyance of the uncontrollable feeling like I need to rabidly binge constantly. Maybe one day it will be validated by a panel of scientists, but soon I'll hit maintenance and continue the next great experiment. In any case, I'll keep living my life, following this current plan, and I'll be healthy and a healthy weight. Wins, scientific validation or no.
Well, it all makes perfect sense to me, and as I'm the one who's satisfaction matters here, that's that. I'm off to do something productive. Like let Jillian Michaels try to kill me. Have a fine remainder of your day, perhaps despite some bleeding you may be experiencing from your eyes as the result of reading the answer you desired.
Yes, Sabine. This is a silly, silly board.
Here’s your argument, I ate foods that contained “added sugars” and they caused cravings. I cut them out and the cravings stopped. Therefore, “added sugars” cause cravings.
LOL
First how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose, please be specific. Then how did you pinpoint "added sugar" as the culprit of your cravings? Was "Sugar" the only different compound in foods that made you have cravings and foods that did not cause cravings? If not, how did you determine that none of the different compounds or combination of compounds in the foods that gave you cravings vs those that did not, were not responsible?
Oh good, more nonsense. Well, enjoy that. I've reached my nonsense quota for today. I'll get back to you after 6mo or so when I've received all my data. And achieved my sexypants. Or not. In the meantime you should enjoy the creature comforts afforded you by your kitchen in your troll-cave nestled snuggly in your fantasy world. I'm not feeding you any more.
Do be a dear, though, and send that crack team of scientists and the key to the lab (which you are funding with the massive winnings from all your MFP bingos and your dividends from being an active member of the Shirtless-Brethren) before you go so we can get started on the research ASAP. Because the world is depending on us.
This hurts my feelings.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »LiminalAscendance wrote: »LiminalAscendance wrote: »
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.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
Based on your response, would you consider the removal of "fast food," ice cream, and candy (for instance) from one's diet a valid method of weight loss, for an individual who does not "love" said foods?
If they do not love/like the food in the first place, they wouldn't be eating them. So this is not something they are eliminating because they aren't eating it in the first place.
I have never had an urge to eat at like... Taco Time or something. Me not eating there =/= me eliminating it from my diet if it's not something that I regularly consumed.
Lookie there, we agree on something. I GAVE UP candy, donuts, pastries etc. etc. etc. about 14 years ago. After a couple of weeks I didn't crave them. Now I actually don't like them. At ALL. So, yeah, it's not really eliminating those at all.
lol
Except you did eliminate them, 14 years ago. So at that point it was elimination. Our tastes change, so if after 14 years you've now consumed donuts, candy, pastries etc and you had to spit them all out because they were gross, then you are correct that you are not currently eliminating it because you do not enjoy it. HOwever, if you consumed all of these today and you enjoyed the taste, then that is eliminating them from your diet.
I haven't, however, given up any foods that I previously and still like. I've swapped out glutinous for non-glutinoous alternatives, but I still enjoy it and haven't given it up.
I eliminated eggs from my diet when I was a teenager because I discovered I was allergic to them. However, I ended up getting sick like... 3-4 years ago? Hospital and all that. So I was eating really soft, easy to eat foods, including eggs. When I ate them, I very much enjoyed them. I ate them for months afterwards without issue. I had to go to get blood tests done for months after my hospital stay, and at one point they did alergy testing well after the 6-week reintroduction of eggs, and I was no longer allergic to them. I have no idea how long I really was allergic to them, but because I still enjoyed them even after I cut them out and then reintroduced them, I had eliminated them. Had I eaten them while sick and thought they tasted gross nad then continued not eating them, this would simply be me not eating something I dislike, as lemur has talked about already.
However, if for example someone cuts out sugar because they think they will lose weight that way and then they eat it again months later, love it still, but force themselves to not eat it, that is an attempt at elimination. If someone decides for some reason to cut out bananas (I don't think anyone will argue about their nutritious benefits) and then months later still loves them but still refuses to eat them, this is elimination. Elimination doesn't just hold for less nutritious foods.
lol. Okay.0
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