Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!

perseverance14

"Good lord, those pizza calories!"
When I want pizza, I get spinach Neapolitan from a place nearby that makes it really well with an extremely thin crust that is great. I could eat a whole small pie for the calories in that example, but I don't, 2 or 3 slices fits well within my calories for the day, and I don't do it very often, it is a nice treat.

If you want pizza, maybe find one that doesn't blow most of your calories for the day with 2 slices?

SLLRunner

blktngldhrt wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

blktngldhrt wrote: »

I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.

Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.

Why would a person looking to lose weight need to cut back on sugar? As you say in your post here, it's not the sugar causing the weight gain.

The reason people debate is because some people think sugar is the poison, the devil, and the cause of weight gain, and other people believe it's overall consumption of food that causes weight gain.

I'm believe the latter, but for years I believe the former. That is, until I learned how to moderate foods and stop mindlessly grabbing for something just because it was a sweet. For me, it was about self control and learning how not to medicate my feelings with food (not just sweets, all food).

Because they want to, maybe. Want being the key word. Who am I to tell someone else what foods they should and shouldn't be eating?

Who cares if people think sugar is bad? Sugar is bad..for me personally (hypoglycemia); so, I have no problem with other people thinking the same. Some people find it harder to eat sugar in moderation than others, maybe?

Different things work for different people. Just because something is ok for you doesn't make it ok for others. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Just eat your donut (or sugary snack of choice) and don't worry about the people who have an issue with it. More for you!

*none of my statements include people who are completely ignorant about the subject of weight loss.. I'm talking people who have an understanding of how it works and choose to get rid of sugar anyway*

Okay, why the attitude? I really don't get it. You join in a discussion and get upset when people ask for clarification.

I'm seeking clarification regarding your posting that cutting sugar will help weight loss, which is not true. It's the overall consumption irrespective of sugar that matters to weight loss. Whether or not it helps you personally is another thing, but saying cutting down helps weight loss is giving sugar power.

I understand you have medical issues to where you have to be careful, but that sounds like a health issue. If you were to eat non-sugar foods over your maintenance you would gain weight. And, just because sugar is bad for you does not mean it's bad for everybody or even bad in and of itself.

By the way, I don't eat donuts because they are gross.

stealthq

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

I realize I am coming back to this entirely too late, but, just to set the record straight:

No. I did not mean two different kinds of foods. Not in the way you're implying.

There are foods that you choose out of consideration for reaching your macros/micros. Maybe you pick fish rather than beef because you need more protein but don't have many calories left. Or another day, you're low on fat but pretty good for proteins and calories so you go for macaroni and cheese, or cheese pizza, or a cream based soup rather than grilled chicken.

And then there are foods you eat just because you want some, no initial consideration for macros/micros involved. So you figure out a way to fit it in.

Any food item could potentially be a member of either group. Some foods are more commonly in one group than the other, but it's truly dependent on your individual tastes, what you've eaten that day, and your state of mind at the time.

For example, I've eaten marshmallows because I needed a fat-free, easily portable, simple carb on a long run. It was definitely not because I enjoy marshmallows before breakfast. So that was a non-treat.

On the other hand, I've eaten roasted brussels sprouts in a mustard and blue cheese sauce just because they were really good. I'd already hit the macros and micros that dish would have helped me with that day. Those were a treat.

Welcome back, stealthq!

Thank you for the clarification! Thankfully, the whole matter has been put to rest, for me anyway.

But I did want to ask, how do you track your micros? My food diary shows calories and macros. Is there a setting that will show the micros also?

Thanks!

There is, kind of. Under the food tab, in Settings you can choose what you track. You'll find some vitamins and minerals as well as protein, fat, carb in the dropdown menus. Unfortunately, you're limited to 5 items. For me, protein and fat are the most important macros. So, I watch those. Then I'll pick three micros if I think I tend to be low.

The iOS mobile app sends up notices for all trackable macros/micros when I hit them whether I have them selected or not. I use it more often than the web app.

stealthq

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.

I wish it were so. But nope - seems everyone has certain foods that fill them up better than others. You figure it out through trial and error.

ETA: Same with meal size and timing.

Kalikel

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

I realize I am coming back to this entirely too late, but, just to set the record straight:

No. I did not mean two different kinds of foods. Not in the way you're implying.

There are foods that you choose out of consideration for reaching your macros/micros. Maybe you pick fish rather than beef because you need more protein but don't have many calories left. Or another day, you're low on fat but pretty good for proteins and calories so you go for macaroni and cheese, or cheese pizza, or a cream based soup rather than grilled chicken.

And then there are foods you eat just because you want some, no initial consideration for macros/micros involved. So you figure out a way to fit it in.

Any food item could potentially be a member of either group. Some foods are more commonly in one group than the other, but it's truly dependent on your individual tastes, what you've eaten that day, and your state of mind at the time.

For example, I've eaten marshmallows because I needed a fat-free, easily portable, simple carb on a long run. It was definitely not because I enjoy marshmallows before breakfast. So that was a non-treat.

On the other hand, I've eaten roasted brussels sprouts in a mustard and blue cheese sauce just because they were really good. I'd already hit the macros and micros that dish would have helped me with that day. Those were a treat.

Welcome back, stealthq!

Thank you for the clarification! Thankfully, the whole matter has been put to rest, for me anyway.

But I did want to ask, how do you track your micros? My food diary shows calories and macros. Is there a setting that will show the micros also?

Thanks!

It's pretty tough and can't be done with MFP (not that I can find, anyway.) You can see a few, but those numbers will be off because not all the information gets entered.

Food packages don't list all the micros, so you have to go investigating on your own.

I've dropped some hints about wanting some software that tracks this stuff and Fruit Of The Month Club for Chrsitmas. So, after I receive electronic crap I don't want, I'll sell that on eBay, buy the micro-tracking stuff myself and let you know how it goes.

jgnatca

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? - Deidre

Lovely processed food is usually absorbed quickly, which means we fill up quickly, and we have an empty stomach sooner. We may have had the perfect number of calories for our body's functioning, but the empty stomach will still growl.

Complex carbohydrates, often found in relatively unrefined foods, also have fiber. Fiber slows digestion down, keeping us full longer.

Take a bowl of oatmeal, for instance. For most folks, it will sit in the stomach like a lead balloon all morning.

_Terrapin_

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

_Terrapin_ wrote: »

Diedre: Only 3 ways the body burns fuel(calories): BMR(being alive), TEF(thermic effect of foods consumed) and TEA(exercise) When people start to understand as they lose weight and lower there caloric intake exercise was their 'friend' all along it is a beautiful day. It allows for consumption of more fuel. . . .who knew?!? So the 80/20 ratio is a little larger due to an increase in calories and provides for both more nutrient dense foods and foods deemed treats. Better?

In an earlier post, I credited Tigger, but I meant Terrapin, when I was agreeing with your comments about macros. What's an 80/20 ratio?

Here's what I understand and agree with:

Everyone has a set number of calories, carbs, protein, and fat that they need to meet on regular daily basis (not every day, but over the course of several days -- let's say a week) in order to lose weight and be healthy.

It is quite possible for some people to eat high calorie, low nutrient foods as the bulk of their food (donuts, fast food, candy bars, deep fried butter sticks, fried foods, all the cake!) and still meet their numbers. They may be big people or they may exercise like a demon or they may be sticking 3 pounds of broccoli into their cupcake recipes.

But "eat what you want, just in moderation" is not great advice for all of us. I would love a donut and latte for breakfast, a Subway sub for lunch, and a slice of pizza for dinner. It's all tasty food that I want to eat, I don't have to buy groceries, I don't have to cook, I don't have to clean the kitchen. It's convenient and fits my lifestyle! But if I ate like that, on my 1390 diet, I would eat so little that I would be hungry, overeat, and diet fail.

For those of us who want to feel full throughout the day (and my assumption here is that feeling full throughout the day will lead to dieting success and permanent lifestyle changes, which is my goal and I would assume the goal of many people on this website), better advice would be: eat lower calorie, nutrient dense food so that you can eat as much food as possible. Save the treats for when you can work them in.

80 percent of food is nutrient dense, do a better job of meeting the MACROS, and provide satiation. 20% do not do this as well but provide for (I truly will remove this word from my vocab) 'treats'. Ugh this thread has made this word hurt my head.

If people avoid paraphrasing the above 'eat what you want. . . .' it would help but human nature leads us to shorten things when we think and believe people understand the context.

Something as a variable is muscle which I am not seeing in your post above. An MFP female friend who weighs 135 is eating 2340 calories a day during a bulk, and she eats 1780 during a cut. So her maintenance calories are approximately 2060. My maintenance is 2540 at 204 and 24% BF(body fat). Muscle provides the opportunity for greater variety in your diet due to the larger caloric need of the muscle versus body fat. Also, you do not need to exercise like a demon; 1 mile walks 4 days a week(roughly 400 calories; 100 calories per mile), and elliptical for 30 minutes 2 days a week(approximately 500 calories--250 calories per session) provide 900 additional calories for the week. Numbers are averages and not intended to represent my or your experience. But those 2 simple things get close to 'eating' an additional 900 calories; so 2 days a week you could 'add' 450 calories.......woo hoo! Hope you get the idea that exercise doesn't need to be much more then what you do currently. One mile is approximately 1500 to 2000 additional steps per mile.

Hope this helps.

J72FIT

jgnatca wrote: »

Lovely processed food is usually absorbed quickly, which means we fill up quickly, and we have an empty stomach sooner. We may have had the perfect number of calories for our body's functioning, but the empty stomach will still growl.

Most highly processed food also contains a lot of calories for not a lot of food (relative to the consumer). Example: Saturday I went to McDonalds with my Wife and Son. I ordered 2 sausage and egg McMuffins. They were 450 calories each, 900 calories in total. They were so tiny... I ate them both and was hungry about an hour later. Luckily I have a lot of calories to play with so it was not a terrible issue. But it could be a disaster for someone who has less calories allotted to them... So as always, when someone asks is a food good or bad, to me, the answer is usually... it depends.

ninerbuff

Thread has become more of "who can get in the last insult" amongst members. Too bad.
Just a reminder.

Dear Posters,

I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread. Earnest and respectful debate on any message in the forums is acceptable. Attacking the messenger is not.

The forum guidelines include this item:
Please note the following forum guideline:

1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation

a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.

b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.

You may review the forum guidelines in their entirety at the following link:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines

Thanks for your understanding,

Ninerbuff