Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
maybe because it sets people up to have a bad relationship with food. If you view food as "bad" and it is something that you like then you are going to crave it, and eventually you will give in and binge on it and feel guilty and then the cycle just repeats itself < been there done that.
Additionally, people then take it to the extreme and say "well I can't eat anything bad so that means no bread, no pasta, never any fast food, no hot wings, no dessert, no nothing. So all they eat is chicken and vegetables, and then they wonder why they can reach their 1200 per day goal. The reason is that they have restricted themselves to the point where they view so many things as "bad" that they eat nothing. If you do not believe me go ahead and run a search for "can't reach daily calorie goal" or "can't reach 1200"
Rather, if people learned that food is not inherently "bad" and that you can eat what you like, stay in a deficit,and lose weight then thy would have better long term, sustainable success….It also sets people up with a more healthy relationship for food..
I bolded "it" because I'm not sure what it refers to -- I think it refers to "bad food", so I'm running with that.
I don't think of any food as bad food. I think some foods are better choices for daily long-term fullness, but hell, I just had 2 slices of pizza last night for dinner and a muffin and latte for breakfast, and I'm still down two pounds. CICO works.
You are absolutely right that when people think they have to restrict, they get pissed off and act out through overeating or they restrict so much they can't reach a 1200 goal. I have had trouble myself reaching 1400 on days when I am busy and skip a meal or am just eating my standard breakfast, lunch, dinner. One day I had 600 calories left over and spent the evening getting drunk just to use them up!
I also agree with you that if people learn that food is not bad, and they learn to stay in a deficit, then they will have better long term sustainable success.
But "and that you can eat what you like" -- that's the bit that troubles me. I want donuts and lattes, Subway sub, and pizza today and for the rest of my life. That would be so awesome! But it's simply not sustainable, and I think you would agree that it would be a crazy stupid diet.
But a lot of people *do* eat like that on a daily basis. For those people who do have a diet like that, "you can eat what you like" also sets them up to have a bad relationship with food. They continue to eat high-calorie foods, but in order to meet their numbers, the amount is so small that they get hungry, want more, get pissed, then cave in and diet fail.
There's an article here that talks about "clean" eating vs IIFYM eating, and how the best diet is somewhere in the middle. The article is written by Armi Legge, whom I don't know much about. He's about 19 years old but seems to have some support from large bulky guys. IDK, he might be batsh*t crazy, but the article made sense to me, esp this bit:
"IIFYM was largely started and spread by bodybuilders, models, and athletes who were tired of adhering to the irrational and undefinable concept of “clean eating.” For the most part, they still maintained a diet that fulfilled their essential nutrition and kept them satisfied, but they didn’t obsess over food quality like they had in the past.
The problem is when someone with no regard to food quality — little common sense or nutritional knowledge — starts IIFYM and takes it literally. Someone already eating a ton of junk food keeps eating the same amount of junk food, but in a more structured manner.
IIFYM is based on the idea that you maintain an overall nutritious diet. Unfortunately, this part is sometimes lost in translation."
-1 -
LOL you can walk it back all you want, that is what you said…
I don't really see the difference between your parsing…but feel free to break it down for me..
eating in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a calorie deficit
keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a deficit..
but feel free to enlighten me...
and you can hint at name calling by calling me a "bro" but that is just a sign of a small mind and acknowledgement that you have no better comeback than "bro"…pathetic…
You seem to be saying that any food, as long as it meets the numbers, is a moderate diet.
So someone could eat donuts, subs, and pizza every day, and as long as they are at their numbers, it's a moderate diet.
Is that what you are saying?
Oh, and I apologize for the "bro" comment -- for me, "bro" just means "dude." I didn't realize, until I read the IIFYM website and other articles, that "bro" refers to a particular subset of bodybuilder. Didn't mean to hit a nerve there, my bad.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I drew up a menu about 15 pages ago that consisted of donuts, subs, and pizza that met my calorie and macro numbers. I was under the calories by about 200 and over the fat by 11 grams, but the carbs, protein and sugar were either at or under the macros.
That menu did bring up another interesting question that I have and don't know the answer to -- if I hit my carbs, protein, and sugar for the day, why doesn't that mean I'll be full all day?
Is that a whole other argument, whether it's better to eat a few big meals vs a lot of small meals? Ugh, I'm not even.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
And that quoted advice itself is the actual terrible advice.
For some.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
gently?
Well it works for me some days not all and if I have had a stressful day forget itSabine_Stroehm wrote: »I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
Yeah, CICO (when it involves counting, or counting, weighing, measuring) is NOT easier for me. But glad you've found what works for you.
My approach is surely depending on the concept of CICO too, yes?
I sense here that as much as we are trying to guide people gently into what will help its meet with a lot of whining of why that won't work a lot of resistance to proven methods. Did not several of us point out you have to tweek and find what works for you? If its not working then you try again you have to keep at this then hopefully you will find success.
I think weight loss relies on CICO. I also think there are many ways to create a deficit.
What's easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
In maintenance, there are many ways to create equilibrium. What is easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
THAT is reality.
(yes, I know this is a predominantly calorie counting bunch, being a calorie counting website, despite the name of the site/app.)
Yes but I think your chances of success are higher and more attainable with exercise along with balancing your intake of food ( notice I did not say sugars) old proven method here many times. That's what I think most of us are trying to convey this isn't easy it takes time and someone else pointed out it takes patience with yourself in getting to a point where everything clicks.
Old proven methods? ABSOLUTELY. The modern SAD as the basis for good health? Not so much. At least not for me. Why is it hard to accept that not everyone will do what is currently popular?
I've never said "all the foods you think taste good in moderation" doesn't work for some. I'm saying it's not how *I* approach my health.
Is how I approach my health, and how others who don't do the popular approach to IIFYM some how doing it wrong?
And yes, I did get to a point where everything clicked. About 14 years ago, in fact. It made total sense for me and it worked like a charm. And has continued to do so. Which I think is the ultimate goal.
ETA: I think it also depends on your definition of "success".0 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
I did'nt say it. Did you ? I must of missed it also. Still cant find it.
Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
Not that I saw.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Good lord deidre how many flags have you gotten on this thread alone?
Enough to make me jealous!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
That is not the same thing. At all.
You're now repeatedly doing the things you've been accusing Dierdre of doing...
0 -
yupSabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
That is not the same thing. At all.
You're now repeatedly doing the things you've been accusing Dierdre of doing...
0 -
If you hit your calories and macro goals, then you're doing it right. Why is that so hard to understand?DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I drew up a menu about 15 pages ago that consisted of donuts, subs, and pizza that met my calorie and macro numbers. I was under the calories by about 200 and over the fat by 11 grams, but the carbs, protein and sugar were either at or under the macros.
That menu did bring up another interesting question that I have and don't know the answer to -- if I hit my carbs, protein, and sugar for the day, why doesn't that mean I'll be full all day?
Is that a whole other argument, whether it's better to eat a few big meals vs a lot of small meals? Ugh, I'm not even.
As for feeling full, that's a trained hormonal response to eating habits. The human body evolved in response to food scarcity. This means it has a tendency to feel hungry when it isn't and to not feel full after it is, causing a person to eat more, because there may not be more food for days or weeks. This is why most people on here point to the science and counting, and talk about how "listening to your body" is generally terrible weight loss advice (because it is.) You can train your body to feel full and feel hungry just based on what and when you eat. Eat 6 small meals at the same time of day for several weeks? You'll generally feel hungry at those times, even if you ate more at a previous meal. Eat just once a day and fast for 24 hours in between? After a few weeks you won't feel hungry until it's your usual eating time. The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.0 -
So there's nothing more to it than calories and macros. No matter how you get there?tigersword wrote: »
If you hit your calories and macro goals, then you're doing it right. Why is that so hard to understand?DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I drew up a menu about 15 pages ago that consisted of donuts, subs, and pizza that met my calorie and macro numbers. I was under the calories by about 200 and over the fat by 11 grams, but the carbs, protein and sugar were either at or under the macros.
That menu did bring up another interesting question that I have and don't know the answer to -- if I hit my carbs, protein, and sugar for the day, why doesn't that mean I'll be full all day?
Is that a whole other argument, whether it's better to eat a few big meals vs a lot of small meals? Ugh, I'm not even.
As for feeling full, that's a trained hormonal response to eating habits. The human body evolved in response to food scarcity. This means it has a tendency to feel hungry when it isn't and to not feel full after it is, causing a person to eat more, because there may not be more food for days or weeks. This is why most people on here point to the science and counting, and talk about how "listening to your body" is generally terrible weight loss advice (because it is.) You can train your body to feel full and feel hungry just based on what and when you eat. Eat 6 small meals at the same time of day for several weeks? You'll generally feel hungry at those times, even if you ate more at a previous meal. Eat just once a day and fast for 24 hours in between? After a few weeks you won't feel hungry until it's your usual eating time. The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
So there's nothing more to it than calories and macros. No matter how you get there?tigersword wrote: »
If you hit your calories and macro goals, then you're doing it right. Why is that so hard to understand?DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I drew up a menu about 15 pages ago that consisted of donuts, subs, and pizza that met my calorie and macro numbers. I was under the calories by about 200 and over the fat by 11 grams, but the carbs, protein and sugar were either at or under the macros.
That menu did bring up another interesting question that I have and don't know the answer to -- if I hit my carbs, protein, and sugar for the day, why doesn't that mean I'll be full all day?
Is that a whole other argument, whether it's better to eat a few big meals vs a lot of small meals? Ugh, I'm not even.
As for feeling full, that's a trained hormonal response to eating habits. The human body evolved in response to food scarcity. This means it has a tendency to feel hungry when it isn't and to not feel full after it is, causing a person to eat more, because there may not be more food for days or weeks. This is why most people on here point to the science and counting, and talk about how "listening to your body" is generally terrible weight loss advice (because it is.) You can train your body to feel full and feel hungry just based on what and when you eat. Eat 6 small meals at the same time of day for several weeks? You'll generally feel hungry at those times, even if you ate more at a previous meal. Eat just once a day and fast for 24 hours in between? After a few weeks you won't feel hungry until it's your usual eating time. The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
*Snap*
0 -
Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Good lord deidre how many flags have you gotten on this thread alone?
Enough to make me jealous!
ha!0 -
tigersword wrote: »The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
Tell that to my bladder. heh hehtigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
What are the micros? Vit A and C, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Sodium? Or something else?
0 -
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 again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
However, if you need studies to believe that some people who are trying to lose weight have an easier time when they limit added sugar:
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways differently
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
Don't worry that people who limit their added sugar during a diet won't be able to keep it up long-term. A dieter's sense of taste adapts. When someone regularly eats a lot of sweetened food, they will prefer sweet. After experiencing some time with less sucrose in their diet, their taste changes to less sweet. This is one reason eliminating and reducing sugar, even if it is temporary, can lead to better diet habits in the long run.
Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: role of repeated exposure.
Liem DG, de Graaf C
Physiol Behav. 2004 Dec 15; 83(3):421-9.
There is substantial scientific evidence that food cravings exist. There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins.
Not everyone gets cravings. Those who don't may not be the best positioned to give advise to those that do. They certainly aren't entitled to dismiss the experiences of those who have successfully gotten through cravings and reduced body fat.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
at the end of the day it boils down to CICO..
if you drink soda and overeat you will be over weight..
if you drink soda and are in a negative energy balance you will lose weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a surplus you gain weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a deficit then you will lose weight.- CICO is only the beginning, my very young padawan. CICO is great for someone losing less than 20 pounds, and having no issues, but it is not enough for:
- Those with constant hunger during a defict
- Those with hormonal/medical issues
- Those with no idea how to eat in a healthy way
- Those trying to lose weight for more than a few months
- Those with cravings
- Those wanting to preserve lean mass and those wanting to maximize visceral fat loss
- Those wanting the most effective workouts (doesn't cardio burn more calories than strength? So according to CICO you should bother with strength training when trying to lose
You need to go back to jedi school…
In all of the instances you listed, CICO would still apply. Yes, if you want preserve lean mass then macro and micro adherence is important and must be followed. however, no one is going to lose weight/fat in a calorie surplus, just by adhering to macros.
so here is the cliff notes version for you:
CICO for strictly weight loss.
macro/micro adherence for body recomp and overall health; however, CICO still applies.
And yes, CICO still applies to medical conditions the formula is just different on the in side.
I really don't understand your point on cardio and strength training. For strictly losing weight one does not need to exercise. As or cardio vs strength training it would boil down to what ones preference is and goals are. I prefer to lift heavy and do minimal cardio, but that is my choice.
CICO is only the starting point. Yes, you continue to use CICO, but in many situations you use more than CICO. When there is a medical condition you use CICO + medical intervention + Dr input + medications. CICO +
When you want to retain lean mass you use CICO + macros + strength training/vigorous exercise
When you want to target visceral fat you use CICO + vigororous exercise + sensible eating (a diet that includes healthy amounts of dairy, fruit, and oat grains, foods that improve the waist-hip ratio).
When you want to enjoy your food you use CICO + learning how to prepare the food you love in a way that fits in CICO
When you want to stick to an exercise plan you use CICO + doing what you enjoy + structuring your life to make room for exercise (getting babysitting, buying equipment, learning how to exercise without getting injured, etc) + learning about the fitness goals of your choice and structuring your workouts around them
When sticking to CICO is difficult due to cravings and hunger you use CICO + learning about healthy eating + macros + restricting/reducing trigger foods + learning about your own triggers (holiday meals, stress eating, hunger due to thirst, hunger due to being tired, and tolerating and understanding hunger panic)
When you want to lose weight for the goal of getting healthy you use CICO + learning about healthy eating + hitting micro and macros + exercise (cardio and strength) Macros and micros are not just for body recomp. Getting the right nutrition to have healthy bones, energy, a healthy cardiovascular and nervous system, avoiding cancer, preventing and managing diabetes, etc. etc. is for everyone.
And most peope dieting find it beneficial to use CICO + the wisdom of others + learning about themselves
Also, a deficit is not necessary for recomp. It's just faster to cut and bulk for some. Good luck 0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
LOL you can walk it back all you want, that is what you said…
I don't really see the difference between your parsing…but feel free to break it down for me..
eating in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a calorie deficit
keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a deficit..
but feel free to enlighten me...
and you can hint at name calling by calling me a "bro" but that is just a sign of a small mind and acknowledgement that you have no better comeback than "bro"…pathetic…
You seem to be saying that any food, as long as it meets the numbers, is a moderate diet.
So someone could eat donuts, subs, and pizza every day, and as long as they are at their numbers, it's a moderate diet.
Is that what you are saying?
Oh, and I apologize for the "bro" comment -- for me, "bro" just means "dude." I didn't realize, until I read the IIFYM website and other articles, that "bro" refers to a particular subset of bodybuilder. Didn't mean to hit a nerve there, my bad.
I am saying that for the average person that just wants to lose weight and get to a healthy body weight then moderating said diet to keep eating what one likes will work, as long as you remain in a calorie deficit. < that is not IIFYM, but one could do IIFYM within this approach.
For people that want to go one step further and get leaner, are high performance athletes, or care about body composition then adherence to macros and micros is going to become more important. However, one could still fit certain treats into their diet as long as they have met their macro needs for the day…
Again it all comes down to preference and what ones goals are.
google the twinkie diet. The guy ate twinkies for a month, was in a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better overall health markers….
i still do not understand why you think this approach is "terrible advice"...0 -
tigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
Ok, so now it's calories, macros, micros and preference. Not just calories and macros. Fabulous. I'm there.
Oh, and I'll keep limiting added sugars, and not eating much in the way of overly processed crap. BAM. Done.
:drinker:
PS: i very much disagree that if you "hit your macros" you'll hit your micros. Especially given the variability in how folks set their macros, but even without that variable. I think Deidre's sample menus would be quite deficient.0 -
My brain tells my bladder what to do all the time. "Hey, we're kinda full down here!" "You have to wait a while, can't do anything right now." "...OK."DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »tigersword wrote: »The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
Tell that to my bladder. heh hehtigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
What are the micros? Vit A and C, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Sodium? Or something else?
And yes, micronutrients are vitamins and minerals. In the modern developed world it's pretty difficult to be micronutrient deficient. Most of the scary statistics being listed by the sensationalistic journalism leave out the fact that micronutrient deficiencies are high in places that are still developing, and malnutrition is common, along with starvation. In developed countries (like the US and UK for example) these issues are basically nonexistent according to WHO statistics.0 -
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 again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
LOL
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
Again, that is a correlation and it is based on a food diary and food frequency questionnaire, how accurate have those been found to be? And do we need the pirates and global warming graph again?
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
No one denied that cravings exist, does it force the food into your mouth as well?
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways different
"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we report that individual variation in trait reward sensitivity (as measured by the Behavioral Activation Scale) is highly correlatedwith activation to images of appetizing foods (e.g., chocolate cake, pizza) in a fronto–striatal–amygdala–midbrain network"
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
Ok go on, how this has any bearing on what we've been talking about. Might also want to check the satiety index, what scores the highest? High carb/sugar laden food, hmmmm
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
"Numerous well-designed observational studies
have found positive associations between
sweetened beverage intake and obesity or
adiposity"
LOL
"Most importantly, two randomized controlled trials
showed that successful reduction of sweetened beverage
intake resulted in reductions in adiposity among children.
Similarly, four trials to increase intake of sweetened
beverages consistently showed weight gain among freeliving
adults. Two additional trials that failed to detect a
significant impact on adiposity were less appropriately
designed to address this hypothesis."
How was activity and other intake controlled for, did they rely on self reported intake?
"There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins."
Actually there is not and you have not presented any. Where are the studies that show in a deficit the evil added sugars are causing fat gain? Anything eaten in a surplus will result in some sort of gain, if you want to single out added sugars as causing fat gain then show it. Can you tell me the difference between added sugars and natural sugars, sucrose from apples vs added sucrose for example? OP did not call for reducing added sugars, he called for reducing sugars, strong reading comprehension
Difference of sucrose in pop from sucrose in an apple. 10 oz Dr. Pepper 125 calories, 32g high fructose corn syrup (mix of fructose and glucose, like sucrose); 100g apple 50 calories,10 g sugars, less than 1 gram of which is sucrose. Having most of the sugar come from the sweeter fructose, containing protein, and containing fiber, the apple is more satisfying than the Dr. Pepper despite having fewer calories. It would also keep the dieter full for longer, keeping the dieter from needing other snacks before the next meal, unlike the Dr. Pepper. Having the apple, a glass of water, and a tablespoon of peanut butter would be a decent snack. The 10 ounces of Dr. Pepper would not be a decent, nutritious snack despite having the same number of calories. This is the difference between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar 1 - there is generally more added sugar than the naturally occurring sugar it is being compared to (I especially appreciated how in your post you implied that insoluble fiber acts the same a sucrose inside the body. LOL) 2 - The naturally occurring sugar occurs with buffers (fiber, protein) that slow it's absorbtion into the body, lessening the impact to the system, allowing it to give energy for longer than the boom-crash you get with some sugar added foods (M&Ms, sodas, fruit bears, etc.) Bringing up fruit, fiber, and complex carbs, and claiming they are the same as sugar-added foods is flimsy, an argument as empty as sucrose's calories.
Most people understand that when someone calls for reducing sugars, they mean added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars in healthy foods, like vegetables and fruits. I have proven that consuming added sugars does not satisfy hunger, and so can lead to a dietary excess of calories, which would lead to weight gain. Sugars (added, as you seem to require the distinction), are, however, easy to remove, (OP's point), letting the dieter get rid of calories in order to be in a deficit without getting rid of foods with essential nutrients (like calcium, potassium, vitamin C, a variety of antioxidants, pectin, lutein and zeaxanthin, vitamin E, B vitamins, vitamin A etc., etc.). Removing added sugars by not drinking as much sugary pop has been shown to not result in an increase of calorie consumption, as you would expect if you simply remove any calorie-containing food from someone's diet. So, back to topic, (added) sugars are easy to remove from the diet, and removing them may make it easier (fewer cravings, less hunger) for dieters to have a caloric deficit without a nutritional defict.
That being said, I don't think sucrose is evil, and I believe in having the occassional treat. Pair the sucrose with some protein to make it less boom/crashy, and train tastebuds to enjoy lower levels of sweet when it works. Unfortunately, on a 1200 calorie/day diet, those treats can seem very occassional.
You seem to have let the entire argument go right over your head. The reason naturally occurring sugars are brought up in comparison to added sugars, esp when dealing with the exact same compound was in response to the poster who claimed added sugars were the sole culprit in their binging, also for the delusional sugar addicts, that say the tiniest bit of sugar causes binges, but yet we find out they are actually lying in that regard as they all can seemingly eat all manner of sugar in moderation.
I also appreciate how we went from added sugars right to sugar sweetened beverages standing in as a proxy for all added sugar product and you made the terrific leap in logic that some studies have shown consuming sugar sweetened beverages, therefore added sugars do not satisfy hunger. You have not presented anything of the sort to back that up.
Once again the OP made no distinction between added and natural. And then compounded that with saying they are good for nothing but a quick energy fix which is total ignorance.
Please stop calling people ignorant. It shuts down intelligent dialogue. It is a common understanding that "cut out sugar" refers to added sugar. And, one of the best attributes of added sugar is that it provides a quick (but not sustained) energy fix. That is why having a glass of chocolate milk is a reasonable recovery drink. The lactose is taken up by the muscle to replace the glucose that has just been used up. The protein slows the glucose spike of the sugars, and helps repair muscle, making it a better recovery drink than, say, Gatoraide. If you know of a "good" use for added sugar aside from giving the body energy, I would like to know what that would be?
Sweetened beverages are a target for me in particular, as my brother was able to drop 30 pounds by cutting out Dr. Pepper, no other diet modification, and no logging/calorie counting. If you ask around you can probably find someone you know who has dropped the sweetened beverages and had the same effect. They are very bad for you, and the 2nd ingredient in them (after water) is generally HFCS, or sucrose. When talking about dropping (added) sugars, they are one commonly used diet category that is calorically (is this a word?) almost entirely that, unlike, fruit, say, which has fiber (which is not equivalent to sugar) and a little protein. Good luck on your continuing journey. 0 -
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 again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
However, if you need studies to believe that some people who are trying to lose weight have an easier time when they limit added sugar:
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways differently
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
Don't worry that people who limit their added sugar during a diet won't be able to keep it up long-term. A dieter's sense of taste adapts. When someone regularly eats a lot of sweetened food, they will prefer sweet. After experiencing some time with less sucrose in their diet, their taste changes to less sweet. This is one reason eliminating and reducing sugar, even if it is temporary, can lead to better diet habits in the long run.
Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: role of repeated exposure.
Liem DG, de Graaf C
Physiol Behav. 2004 Dec 15; 83(3):421-9.
There is substantial scientific evidence that food cravings exist. There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins.
Not everyone gets cravings. Those who don't may not be the best positioned to give advise to those that do. They certainly aren't entitled to dismiss the experiences of those who have successfully gotten through cravings and reduced body fat.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
at the end of the day it boils down to CICO..
if you drink soda and overeat you will be over weight..
if you drink soda and are in a negative energy balance you will lose weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a surplus you gain weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a deficit then you will lose weight.- CICO is only the beginning, my very young padawan. CICO is great for someone losing less than 20 pounds, and having no issues, but it is not enough for:
- Those with constant hunger during a defict
- Those with hormonal/medical issues
- Those with no idea how to eat in a healthy way
- Those trying to lose weight for more than a few months
- Those with cravings
- Those wanting to preserve lean mass and those wanting to maximize visceral fat loss
- Those wanting the most effective workouts (doesn't cardio burn more calories than strength? So according to CICO you should bother with strength training when trying to lose
You need to go back to jedi school…
In all of the instances you listed, CICO would still apply. Yes, if you want preserve lean mass then macro and micro adherence is important and must be followed. however, no one is going to lose weight/fat in a calorie surplus, just by adhering to macros.
so here is the cliff notes version for you:
CICO for strictly weight loss.
macro/micro adherence for body recomp and overall health; however, CICO still applies.
And yes, CICO still applies to medical conditions the formula is just different on the in side.
I really don't understand your point on cardio and strength training. For strictly losing weight one does not need to exercise. As or cardio vs strength training it would boil down to what ones preference is and goals are. I prefer to lift heavy and do minimal cardio, but that is my choice.
CICO is only the starting point. Yes, you continue to use CICO, but in many situations you use more than CICO. When there is a medical condition you use CICO + medical intervention + Dr input + medications. CICO +
When you want to retain lean mass you use CICO + macros + strength training/vigorous exercise
When you want to target visceral fat you use CICO + vigororous exercise + sensible eating (a diet that includes healthy amounts of dairy, fruit, and oat grains, foods that improve the waist-hip ratio).
When you want to enjoy your food you use CICO + learning how to prepare the food you love in a way that fits in CICO
When you want to stick to an exercise plan you use CICO + doing what you enjoy + structuring your life to make room for exercise (getting babysitting, buying equipment, learning how to exercise without getting injured, etc) + learning about the fitness goals of your choice and structuring your workouts around them
When sticking to CICO is difficult due to cravings and hunger you use CICO + learning about healthy eating + macros + restricting/reducing trigger foods + learning about your own triggers (holiday meals, stress eating, hunger due to thirst, hunger due to being tired, and tolerating and understanding hunger panic)
When you want to lose weight for the goal of getting healthy you use CICO + learning about healthy eating + hitting micro and macros + exercise (cardio and strength) Macros and micros are not just for body recomp. Getting the right nutrition to have healthy bones, energy, a healthy cardiovascular and nervous system, avoiding cancer, preventing and managing diabetes, etc. etc. is for everyone.
And most peope dieting find it beneficial to use CICO + the wisdom of others + learning about themselves
Also, a deficit is not necessary for recomp. It's just faster to cut and bulk for some. Good luck
you just basically agreed with everything that I said, and totally backtracked off your original premise….
and if you are recomping you are still going back and forth between a small deficit and a small surplus because there is no way that logging in maintenance will be 100% accurate. so yea, if you want to recomp and spin your wheels for a year for a small fat loss and even smaller muscle gain, I guess that makes sense...0 -
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 again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
LOL
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
Again, that is a correlation and it is based on a food diary and food frequency questionnaire, how accurate have those been found to be? And do we need the pirates and global warming graph again?
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
No one denied that cravings exist, does it force the food into your mouth as well?
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways different
"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we report that individual variation in trait reward sensitivity (as measured by the Behavioral Activation Scale) is highly correlatedwith activation to images of appetizing foods (e.g., chocolate cake, pizza) in a fronto–striatal–amygdala–midbrain network"
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
Ok go on, how this has any bearing on what we've been talking about. Might also want to check the satiety index, what scores the highest? High carb/sugar laden food, hmmmm
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
"Numerous well-designed observational studies
have found positive associations between
sweetened beverage intake and obesity or
adiposity"
LOL
"Most importantly, two randomized controlled trials
showed that successful reduction of sweetened beverage
intake resulted in reductions in adiposity among children.
Similarly, four trials to increase intake of sweetened
beverages consistently showed weight gain among freeliving
adults. Two additional trials that failed to detect a
significant impact on adiposity were less appropriately
designed to address this hypothesis."
How was activity and other intake controlled for, did they rely on self reported intake?
"There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins."
Actually there is not and you have not presented any. Where are the studies that show in a deficit the evil added sugars are causing fat gain? Anything eaten in a surplus will result in some sort of gain, if you want to single out added sugars as causing fat gain then show it. Can you tell me the difference between added sugars and natural sugars, sucrose from apples vs added sucrose for example? OP did not call for reducing added sugars, he called for reducing sugars, strong reading comprehension
Difference of sucrose in pop from sucrose in an apple. 10 oz Dr. Pepper 125 calories, 32g high fructose corn syrup (mix of fructose and glucose, like sucrose); 100g apple 50 calories,10 g sugars, less than 1 gram of which is sucrose. Having most of the sugar come from the sweeter fructose, containing protein, and containing fiber, the apple is more satisfying than the Dr. Pepper despite having fewer calories. It would also keep the dieter full for longer, keeping the dieter from needing other snacks before the next meal, unlike the Dr. Pepper. Having the apple, a glass of water, and a tablespoon of peanut butter would be a decent snack. The 10 ounces of Dr. Pepper would not be a decent, nutritious snack despite having the same number of calories. This is the difference between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar 1 - there is generally more added sugar than the naturally occurring sugar it is being compared to (I especially appreciated how in your post you implied that insoluble fiber acts the same a sucrose inside the body. LOL) 2 - The naturally occurring sugar occurs with buffers (fiber, protein) that slow it's absorbtion into the body, lessening the impact to the system, allowing it to give energy for longer than the boom-crash you get with some sugar added foods (M&Ms, sodas, fruit bears, etc.) Bringing up fruit, fiber, and complex carbs, and claiming they are the same as sugar-added foods is flimsy, an argument as empty as sucrose's calories.
Most people understand that when someone calls for reducing sugars, they mean added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars in healthy foods, like vegetables and fruits. I have proven that consuming added sugars does not satisfy hunger, and so can lead to a dietary excess of calories, which would lead to weight gain. Sugars (added, as you seem to require the distinction), are, however, easy to remove, (OP's point), letting the dieter get rid of calories in order to be in a deficit without getting rid of foods with essential nutrients (like calcium, potassium, vitamin C, a variety of antioxidants, pectin, lutein and zeaxanthin, vitamin E, B vitamins, vitamin A etc., etc.). Removing added sugars by not drinking as much sugary pop has been shown to not result in an increase of calorie consumption, as you would expect if you simply remove any calorie-containing food from someone's diet. So, back to topic, (added) sugars are easy to remove from the diet, and removing them may make it easier (fewer cravings, less hunger) for dieters to have a caloric deficit without a nutritional defict.
That being said, I don't think sucrose is evil, and I believe in having the occassional treat. Pair the sucrose with some protein to make it less boom/crashy, and train tastebuds to enjoy lower levels of sweet when it works. Unfortunately, on a 1200 calorie/day diet, those treats can seem very occassional.
You seem to have let the entire argument go right over your head. The reason naturally occurring sugars are brought up in comparison to added sugars, esp when dealing with the exact same compound was in response to the poster who claimed added sugars were the sole culprit in their binging, also for the delusional sugar addicts, that say the tiniest bit of sugar causes binges, but yet we find out they are actually lying in that regard as they all can seemingly eat all manner of sugar in moderation.
I also appreciate how we went from added sugars right to sugar sweetened beverages standing in as a proxy for all added sugar product and you made the terrific leap in logic that some studies have shown consuming sugar sweetened beverages, therefore added sugars do not satisfy hunger. You have not presented anything of the sort to back that up.
Once again the OP made no distinction between added and natural. And then compounded that with saying they are good for nothing but a quick energy fix which is total ignorance.
Please stop calling people ignorant. It shuts down intelligent dialogue. It is a common understanding that "cut out sugar" refers to added sugar. And, one of the best attributes of added sugar is that it provides a quick (but not sustained) energy fix. That is why having a glass of chocolate milk is a reasonable recovery drink. The lactose is taken up by the muscle to replace the glucose that has just been used up. The protein slows the glucose spike of the sugars, and helps repair muscle, making it a better recovery drink than, say, Gatoraide. If you know of a "good" use for added sugar aside from giving the body energy, I would like to know what that would be?
Sweetened beverages are a target for me in particular, as my brother was able to drop 30 pounds by cutting out Dr. Pepper, no other diet modification, and no logging/calorie counting. If you ask around you can probably find someone you know who has dropped the sweetened beverages and had the same effect. They are very bad for you, and the 2nd ingredient in them (after water) is generally HFCS, or sucrose. When talking about dropping (added) sugars, they are one commonly used diet category that is calorically (is this a word?) almost entirely that, unlike, fruit, say, which has fiber (which is not equivalent to sugar) and a little protein. Good luck on your continuing journey.
the point he is making is that added sugar vs natural sugar does not matter. At the molecular level sugar is sugar and your body recognizes it as such.
Your brother lost weight because he cut out calorie dense food with sugar in it….if he would of cut something else out and kept drinking the dr pepper and was in a deficit he would of lost weight.
and I never understand this fruit has fiber in it..so if I drink some metamusal and add three servings of sugar to it is that good or bad? Because fiber it would be good; because added sugar it would be bad….totally ridiculous…
but then again, I don't need to speak for ACG he is totally capable of holding his own...0 -
google the twinkie diet. The guy ate twinkies for a month, was in a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better overall health markers….
i still do not understand why you think this approach is "terrible advice"...
Ok, now I am very clear on your position. If regular Joe wants to lose weight, he can eat any foods at all as long as meets his calories, and he'll lose weight.
I am in complete agreement with you. If someone eats below their TDEE, they'll lose weight, regardless of what foods they are eating.
Why I think that's terrible advice is because I believe in eating as much food as possible within my calories and macros. I think that eating as much food as possible leads sustainable weight loss / lifetime lifestyle changes.
But I could be wrong. I prefer to see my plate loaded with food and my belly stuffed at the end of a meal, but other people might prefer smaller meals. I truly don't know.0 -
tigersword wrote: »
My brain tells my bladder what to do all the time. "Hey, we're kinda full down here!" "You have to wait a while, can't do anything right now." "...OK."DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »tigersword wrote: »The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
Tell that to my bladder. heh hehtigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
What are the micros? Vit A and C, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Sodium? Or something else?
And yes, micronutrients are vitamins and minerals. In the modern developed world it's pretty difficult to be micronutrient deficient. Most of the scary statistics being listed by the sensationalistic journalism leave out the fact that micronutrient deficiencies are high in places that are still developing, and malnutrition is common, along with starvation. In developed countries (like the US and UK for example) these issues are basically nonexistent according to WHO statistics.
Um...osteoporosis? In Canada 1 in 3 women and 1 in 5 men will suffer an osteoporosis fracture. Breaking a hip in your twilight years can lead to pneumonia and death. There is protein deficiency seen in the children of lower income Americans (and fad dieters) that leads to brain shrinkage in their children? I was advised to give my daughters supplemental D vitamin due to the deficiencies sometimes seen in breast fed infants. There have been numerous studies showing the advantages of nutritional supplementation in various conditions (heart disease, Alzheimers, etc.) The best way to meet nutritional needs without a degree in biochemistry is through a healthy, varied diet. Junk food does not provide this, although it fits nicely into CICO. I've found that when I supplement with more vitamins and minerals I recover faster from workout DOMs and plantar fascitis. We all benefit from a healthy diet.-1 -
Agreed with Acg. Would also like to add:
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 again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
LOL
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
Again, that is a correlation and it is based on a food diary and food frequency questionnaire, how accurate have those been found to be? And do we need the pirates and global warming graph again?
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
No one denied that cravings exist, does it force the food into your mouth as well?
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways different
"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we report that individual variation in trait reward sensitivity (as measured by the Behavioral Activation Scale) is highly correlatedwith activation to images of appetizing foods (e.g., chocolate cake, pizza) in a fronto–striatal–amygdala–midbrain network"
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
Ok go on, how this has any bearing on what we've been talking about. Might also want to check the satiety index, what scores the highest? High carb/sugar laden food, hmmmm
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
"Numerous well-designed observational studies
have found positive associations between
sweetened beverage intake and obesity or
adiposity"
LOL
"Most importantly, two randomized controlled trials
showed that successful reduction of sweetened beverage
intake resulted in reductions in adiposity among children.
Similarly, four trials to increase intake of sweetened
beverages consistently showed weight gain among freeliving
adults. Two additional trials that failed to detect a
significant impact on adiposity were less appropriately
designed to address this hypothesis."
How was activity and other intake controlled for, did they rely on self reported intake?
"There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins."
Actually there is not and you have not presented any. Where are the studies that show in a deficit the evil added sugars are causing fat gain? Anything eaten in a surplus will result in some sort of gain, if you want to single out added sugars as causing fat gain then show it. Can you tell me the difference between added sugars and natural sugars, sucrose from apples vs added sucrose for example? OP did not call for reducing added sugars, he called for reducing sugars, strong reading comprehension
Difference of sucrose in pop from sucrose in an apple. 10 oz Dr. Pepper 125 calories, 32g high fructose corn syrup (mix of fructose and glucose, like sucrose); 100g apple 50 calories,10 g sugars, less than 1 gram of which is sucrose. Having most of the sugar come from the sweeter fructose, containing protein, and containing fiber, the apple is more satisfying than the Dr. Pepper despite having fewer calories. It would also keep the dieter full for longer, keeping the dieter from needing other snacks before the next meal, unlike the Dr. Pepper. Having the apple, a glass of water, and a tablespoon of peanut butter would be a decent snack. The 10 ounces of Dr. Pepper would not be a decent, nutritious snack despite having the same number of calories. This is the difference between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar 1 - there is generally more added sugar than the naturally occurring sugar it is being compared to (I especially appreciated how in your post you implied that insoluble fiber acts the same a sucrose inside the body. LOL) 2 - The naturally occurring sugar occurs with buffers (fiber, protein) that slow it's absorbtion into the body, lessening the impact to the system, allowing it to give energy for longer than the boom-crash you get with some sugar added foods (M&Ms, sodas, fruit bears, etc.) Bringing up fruit, fiber, and complex carbs, and claiming they are the same as sugar-added foods is flimsy, an argument as empty as sucrose's calories.
Most people understand that when someone calls for reducing sugars, they mean added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars in healthy foods, like vegetables and fruits. I have proven that consuming added sugars does not satisfy hunger, and so can lead to a dietary excess of calories, which would lead to weight gain. Sugars (added, as you seem to require the distinction), are, however, easy to remove, (OP's point), letting the dieter get rid of calories in order to be in a deficit without getting rid of foods with essential nutrients (like calcium, potassium, vitamin C, a variety of antioxidants, pectin, lutein and zeaxanthin, vitamin E, B vitamins, vitamin A etc., etc.). Removing added sugars by not drinking as much sugary pop has been shown to not result in an increase of calorie consumption, as you would expect if you simply remove any calorie-containing food from someone's diet. So, back to topic, (added) sugars are easy to remove from the diet, and removing them may make it easier (fewer cravings, less hunger) for dieters to have a caloric deficit without a nutritional defict.
That being said, I don't think sucrose is evil, and I believe in having the occassional treat. Pair the sucrose with some protein to make it less boom/crashy, and train tastebuds to enjoy lower levels of sweet when it works. Unfortunately, on a 1200 calorie/day diet, those treats can seem very occassional.
You seem to have let the entire argument go right over your head. The reason naturally occurring sugars are brought up in comparison to added sugars, esp when dealing with the exact same compound was in response to the poster who claimed added sugars were the sole culprit in their binging, also for the delusional sugar addicts, that say the tiniest bit of sugar causes binges, but yet we find out they are actually lying in that regard as they all can seemingly eat all manner of sugar in moderation.
I also appreciate how we went from added sugars right to sugar sweetened beverages standing in as a proxy for all added sugar product and you made the terrific leap in logic that some studies have shown consuming sugar sweetened beverages, therefore added sugars do not satisfy hunger. You have not presented anything of the sort to back that up.
Once again the OP made no distinction between added and natural. And then compounded that with saying they are good for nothing but a quick energy fix which is total ignorance.
You can't say HFCS is "like sucrose" and then turn around and make a big deal about the different sugars in apples not being like sucrose. Here's the thing, HFCS? It's just fructose and glucose blended together. They aren't really molecularly bonded to each other, they are simply mixed together, far more similar to the way the fructose, glucose, and sucrose behave in an apple. Also, if you're going to make a comparison, you really need to make an equal comparison. Comparing 125 calories of soda to only 50 calories of apple is completely disingenuous. How about 50 calories of each? That gives you 10 grams of sugar according to your listed information. 50 calories of Dr. Pepper? 12.8 grams. Really not a significant difference. So, 12.8 grams of free glucose and fructose vs 10 grams of free fructose and glucose. Explain how that's so much different? And protein in 50 calories of apple is less than half a gram, that has exactly zero impact on satiety, nor does it really provide meaningful levels of protein nutritionally.
Also, you keep using the "vacuum" argument to prove good and bad foods. Sure chocolate milk is great. However, suppose I eat a piece of steak while drinking my Gatorade? Wouldn't the protein and fat in the steak accomplish the same things as they would in the chocolate milk? Yes, they would, and they do. People don't eat single macronutrient foods in a vacuum. That only happens in a laboratory. In the real world we mix foods together of various macronutrients and eat them. This is why any argument that attempts to single out a single macronutrient will always be fallacious. It was fallacious when it was fat. It's fallacious now that it's sugar. And in 20 years, when they inevitably try and blame protein, it will be fallacious then, too. (Yes, sadly, there are idiots out there already that have attempted to blame protein.)0 -
Please stop calling people ignorant. It shuts down intelligent dialogue. It is a common understanding that "cut out sugar" refers to added sugar. And, one of the best attributes of added sugar is that it provides a quick (but not sustained) energy fix. That is why having a glass of chocolate milk is a reasonable recovery drink. The lactose is taken up by the muscle to replace the glucose that has just been used up. The protein slows the glucose spike of the sugars, and helps repair muscle, making it a better recovery drink than, say, Gatoraide. If you know of a "good" use for added sugar aside from giving the body energy, I would like to know what that would be?
Sweetened beverages are a target for me in particular, as my brother was able to drop 30 pounds by cutting out Dr. Pepper, no other diet modification, and no logging/calorie counting. If you ask around you can probably find someone you know who has dropped the sweetened beverages and had the same effect. They are very bad for you, and the 2nd ingredient in them (after water) is generally HFCS, or sucrose. When talking about dropping (added) sugars, they are one commonly used diet category that is calorically (is this a word?) almost entirely that, unlike, fruit, say, which has fiber (which is not equivalent to sugar) and a little protein. Good luck on your continuing journey.
Then perhaps tell people to stop making ignorant statements if they don't want to be called ignorant. I am wondering what you would call people who claim they are addicted to something but yet when pressed on it don't even really know what that something is.
Right, have you read some of the sugar detox books and websites that also cut out fruits and the such in the first few weeks to "detox" your system? What actually is added sugar, it isn't a real thing. Is it any sugar added to something before finishing?
And once again you seem to be missing the point, the OP stated cutting out sugar and that sugar (no distinction between added or not) is only good for a quick energy fix. You yourself just provided an example of glycogen replenishment as another. I wonder if there's been any research at all at how subjects fare on various tasks and tests with a dose of sucrose or glucose prior to said tasks/tests and what the results were? I'm reasonably certain raising blood sugar levels if someone were to go hypoglycemic would also be another good use. In the link i posted a little bit ago other uses were also listed.
Thanks for the non sequitur about your brother, that however doesn't clear up how you suggested you "proved" added sugars are not satiating but simply presenting 1 study on sugar sweetened beverages, did i miss something?0 -
tigersword wrote: »
My brain tells my bladder what to do all the time. "Hey, we're kinda full down here!" "You have to wait a while, can't do anything right now." "...OK."DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »tigersword wrote: »The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
Tell that to my bladder. heh hehtigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
What are the micros? Vit A and C, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Sodium? Or something else?
And yes, micronutrients are vitamins and minerals. In the modern developed world it's pretty difficult to be micronutrient deficient. Most of the scary statistics being listed by the sensationalistic journalism leave out the fact that micronutrient deficiencies are high in places that are still developing, and malnutrition is common, along with starvation. In developed countries (like the US and UK for example) these issues are basically nonexistent according to WHO statistics.
Um...osteoporosis? In Canada 1 in 3 women and 1 in 5 men will suffer an osteoporosis fracture. Breaking a hip in your twilight years can lead to pneumonia and death. There is protein deficiency seen in the children of lower income Americans (and fad dieters) that leads to brain shrinkage in their children? I was advised to give my daughters supplemental D vitamin due to the deficiencies sometimes seen in breast fed infants. There have been numerous studies showing the advantages of nutritional supplementation in various conditions (heart disease, Alzheimers, etc.) The best way to meet nutritional needs without a degree in biochemistry is through a healthy, varied diet. Junk food does not provide this, although it fits nicely into CICO. I've found that when I supplement with more vitamins and minerals I recover faster from workout DOMs and plantar fascitis. We all benefit from a healthy diet.
Sources for your info? I took my information directly from the WHO and CDC. Also, protein is a macronutrient, not a micronutrient.
And osteoporosis? How is that relevant? Let's look into the causes of osteoporosis. Advanced age, estrogen deficiency, testosterone deficiency, excess protein intake, inactivity, excess alcohol, underweight, endurance training, tobacco smoking, genetics, and yes, Vitamin D deficiency is listed. So yeah, probably not a good example to use when trying to pin something on micronutrient deficiency, because it's really not the cause, and most people get osteoporosis without any nutritional deficiencies at all.0 -
Please stop calling people ignorant. It shuts down intelligent dialogue. It is a common understanding that "cut out sugar" refers to added sugar. And, one of the best attributes of added sugar is that it provides a quick (but not sustained) energy fix. That is why having a glass of chocolate milk is a reasonable recovery drink. The lactose is taken up by the muscle to replace the glucose that has just been used up. The protein slows the glucose spike of the sugars, and helps repair muscle, making it a better recovery drink than, say, Gatoraide. If you know of a "good" use for added sugar aside from giving the body energy, I would like to know what that would be?
Sweetened beverages are a target for me in particular, as my brother was able to drop 30 pounds by cutting out Dr. Pepper, no other diet modification, and no logging/calorie counting. If you ask around you can probably find someone you know who has dropped the sweetened beverages and had the same effect. They are very bad for you, and the 2nd ingredient in them (after water) is generally HFCS, or sucrose. When talking about dropping (added) sugars, they are one commonly used diet category that is calorically (is this a word?) almost entirely that, unlike, fruit, say, which has fiber (which is not equivalent to sugar) and a little protein. Good luck on your continuing journey.
Then perhaps tell people to stop making ignorant statements if they don't want to be called ignorant. I am wondering what you would call people who claim they are addicted to something but yet when pressed on it don't even really know what that something is.
Right, have you read some of the sugar detox books and websites that also cut out fruits and the such in the first few weeks to "detox" your system? What actually is added sugar, it isn't a real thing. Is it any sugar added to something before finishing?
And once again you seem to be missing the point, the OP stated cutting out sugar and that sugar (no distinction between added or not) is only good for a quick energy fix. You yourself just provided an example of glycogen replenishment as another. I wonder if there's been any research at all at how subjects fare on various tasks and tests with a dose of sucrose or glucose prior to said tasks/tests and what the results were? I'm reasonably certain raising blood sugar levels if someone were to go hypoglycemic would also be another good use. In the link i posted a little bit ago other uses were also listed.
Thanks for the non sequitur about your brother, that however doesn't clear up how you suggested you "proved" added sugars are not satiating but simply presenting 1 study on sugar sweetened beverages, did i miss something?
I don't have the study available, but I do remember a study using Israeli parole judges, tracking their mental fatigue. It noted that as the day wore on they were more likely to just defer parole cases to avoid making decisions, but after a break where they ingested glucose they were back to making decisions and being mentally alert. Not that "glucose improves mental function," is really a conclusion that should surprise anyone.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