Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
how much is "moderate"?
For me, it is what I can fit in to my calorie goals. It also means variety. Because of my diabetic training, I am looking to get vegetables, carbs, and protein in to every meal, with a dairy if I can squeeze it in. That means a little bit of everything.
My calorie goal for breakfast is 400 calories. I try and limit my two snacks to 100 calories each. I will eat between 1300 to 1600 calories total a day, which by the way, is pretty tough to do. It's moderate for me, but may be too little for others.
The recommended portions on the sides of packages are not the be-all and end-all. Most snacks have twice the calories I need, so I cut them in half.
It also means that a single serving from a Carl's Jr. or a Red Robin's is way over my calorie goals, so are therefore unattractive.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
My personal theory--such as it is--is that insulin spikes are more relevant to an overall pattern of eating than overeating on specific foods. If you have a problem with insulin and eat a higher carb diet, you will be generally feeling hungry, more likely to experience cravings, etc. I'm not insulin resistant, but like many I can mimic this somewhat if I eat refined carbs alone to create a situation where the blood sugar seems to spike and crash, so that one gets hungry not long after eating and feels the need of a pick-me-up, that tired, low energy feeling.
I think feeling tired/low energy/hungry makes you less able to resist treats (the willpower thing again), but I'm not sure it makes sense to me that it would make you keep eating them. The latter seems more related to taste and some other form of satisfaction from it. Plus the psychological issues. Also, more practically, my experience was that once I was overweight I tended to overeat more, since easier to think it wouldn't make much difference anyway, might as well have that additional cookie.
But I am open to other ideas, of course.
Well I think it is that you can get into a cycle where you are looking for more foods that will quickly handle the fatigue and hunger, which are those foods that are quickly accessible and provide energy quickly (e.g., snack/prepared foods, high sugar content etc.) and like you stated, willpower may be in short supply as well. Plus the psychological issues
Oh, sure. I agree with this.0 -
On other matters, I don't know why everyone seems to be seems to be so anti-radish. Radishes are great, especially with a bit of salt.
I wouldn't typically eat them when in the mood for chocolate, of course.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, I don't know why everyone seems to be seems to be so anti-radish. Radishes are great, especially with a bit of salt.
I wouldn't typically eat them when in the mood for chocolate, of course.
I don't either, I have steamed radishes with dinner all the time. Radish cakes are crazy good, I have to be careful with those.
0 -
The testers weren't measuring anger, they were measuring the participant's ability to complete a complex task afterwards.
This really isn't so hard to comprehend......
But they didn't have the participants complete a complex task before being shown the chocolate, so they can't definitively say there was any change in the experimental groups' performance on the task. For all they know, the radish-eaters would have half-assed it on the task regardless.0 -
But they didn't have the participants complete a complex task before being shown the chocolate, so they can't definitively say there was any change in the experimental groups' performance on the task. For all they know, the radish-eaters would have half-assed it on the task regardless.
That's what randomization is for... this is classic between-groups experimental design.0 -
This thread wins the nuked fridge award of Dec 2014.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, I don't know why everyone seems to be seems to be so anti-radish. Radishes are great, especially with a bit of salt.
I wouldn't typically eat them when in the mood for chocolate, of course.
Oh there's nothing wrong with radishes. I just don't like them. But I love turnip greens and Brussels sprouts and lots don't.
It's OK, Mr.Radish, lemurcat likes you!0 -
kgeyser, the conditions of the test and the controls are listed here starting on page 1254 (not as onerous as it sounds).
http://www.psy.lu.se/upload/psykologi/pdf/strength_model1.pdf0 -
girlviernes wrote: »But they didn't have the participants complete a complex task before being shown the chocolate, so they can't definitively say there was any change in the experimental groups' performance on the task. For all they know, the radish-eaters would have half-assed it on the task regardless.
That's what randomization is for... this is classic between-groups experimental design.
shouldn't they have had a control group, or did I miss that part...0 -
girlviernes wrote: »But they didn't have the participants complete a complex task before being shown the chocolate, so they can't definitively say there was any change in the experimental groups' performance on the task. For all they know, the radish-eaters would have half-assed it on the task regardless.
That's what randomization is for... this is classic between-groups experimental design.
shouldn't they have had a control group, or did I miss that part...
They conceptualized the eat cookies and look at radishes as the control group, which is actually what makes the study problematic in my book because eating cookies -> glucose which has specifically been shown to ameliorate ego depletion (but that research came later than this original study).0 -
Besides, this experiment has been repeated.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/3/275.abstract0 -
girlviernes wrote: »But they didn't have the participants complete a complex task before being shown the chocolate, so they can't definitively say there was any change in the experimental groups' performance on the task. For all they know, the radish-eaters would have half-assed it on the task regardless.
That's what randomization is for... this is classic between-groups experimental design.
You would still need a baseline in performance to compare to in order to state that the stimuli was responsible for the response. It's clear that deprivation led to a response, but whether that response is the result of ego/willpower is speculative.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »But they didn't have the participants complete a complex task before being shown the chocolate, so they can't definitively say there was any change in the experimental groups' performance on the task. For all they know, the radish-eaters would have half-assed it on the task regardless.
That's what randomization is for... this is classic between-groups experimental design.
You would still need a baseline in performance to compare to in order to state that the stimuli was responsible for the response. It's clear that deprivation led to a response, but whether that response is the result of ego/willpower is speculative.
What you are talking about is a within-subject design, but it is not necessary if you have a good between-subject design. Between-subject with good randomization will also establish causality.
0 -
That's it. I need a glucose fix.
Before I get cranky.0 -
oh this was chocolate and there was a separate control! gosh my memory playing tricks on me
Thanks for posting 0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Another is a confusion of hunger or wanting to eat for something else . . .
I'm wondering now if there could be a confusion of signals of a sort, that you think you need to eat until that feeling, that people get?
What I think of when I think of binging is eating for reasons other than the pleasure of the food, that you aren't even really enjoying it after a while. Is that different than what you are talking about?
I confuse hunger with thirst a lot. When I am hungry at times I shouldn't be (half hour after a meal, for instance), I have to ask myself if I am hungry or thirsty. It certainly feels like hunger -- stomach growls, mind thinks of food -- but it's just thirst.
****
When I first went on food plan, I had to train myself to listen to my body's signals. I wouldn't feel full, but when the next bite of food wasn't as tasty as the previous, that's when I knew I was full. Put down the fork, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, and boom my stomach full signal finally gets to my brain.
Now, 10 years on, my stomach and my brain are in pretty good sync. I can tell when I'm full pretty quickly.
***
Binging for me was pleasurable at first -- yay delicious cookie. But then it quickly turned ugly - the desire for a cookie turned into an urge to eat another one and another one and another one, compulsively, and that was greatly unpleasurable.
It sounds like a whole lotta suck for you in terms of the brain and appetite. Registered dieticians have said it takes 20 minutes for this to occur.
0 -
Radishes aside, I don't care for them either...sugar aside, enough said.... the eating the whole butter posts... TMI that is just disgusting....anyways the raw element of discussions is the ability to exchange information and possibly agree to disagree, also I learned a few things today, isn't that what we are really after??
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »This thread wins the nuked fridge award of Dec 2014.
Yes but can you name the last 3 foods referenced and if anyone has said ego depletion yet?
0 -
Radishes aside, I don't care for them either...sugar aside, enough said.... the eating the whole butter posts... TMI that is just disgusting....anyways the raw element of discussions is the ability to exchange information and possibly agree to disagree, also I learned a few things today, isn't that what we are really after??
I saw in a buzzfeed thread a Russian food that is basically raw pig fat. The Inuit lived off blubber.
I dunno... maybe that should be the next diet craze... raw fat.
0 -
Wow now that is really just bad please no.. no...no let's hope not...girlviernes wrote: »Radishes aside, I don't care for them either...sugar aside, enough said.... the eating the whole butter posts... TMI that is just disgusting....anyways the raw element of discussions is the ability to exchange information and possibly agree to disagree, also I learned a few things today, isn't that what we are really after??
I saw in a buzzfeed thread a Russian food that is basically raw pig fat. The Inuit lived off blubber.
I dunno... maybe that should be the next diet craze... raw fat.
0 -
Huh. Seems I missed a lot while writing my final paper. Recap? I'm not bothering to read 7 pages
0 -
Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
0 -
So, elimination?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
0 -
stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.-2 -
I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.
Makes complete and total sense. They'll never approve or agree with that though.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't
Sabine, ROFL. Thank you! Also, I haven't had time to comment on some of your earlier posts but I did want to tell you I appreciate what you have to say.
Cheers!
0 -
thanks!DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't
Sabine, ROFL. Thank you! Also, I haven't had time to comment on some of your earlier posts but I did want to tell you I appreciate what you have to say.
Cheers!
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