Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
tigersword wrote: »
How can you suggest that without knowing what anyone is eating? The problem here is you're very much overgeneralizing. Are you aware that the biggest macro increase in our food supply is actually fat over the last 100 years? According to USDA data, carbohydrate consumption has been basically flat (a few highs and lows, but we're actually eating a few grams less of total carbs today than we were in 1909,) while fat intake has increased by roughly 500 calories in that same time span.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
Or that energy is somehow unimportant. There's a very specific reason sugar tastes good to us. Because in general, it IS good for us. If it didn't offer us any advantage, we wouldn't taste it, or it would taste bad. For example, cats are carnivores, they don't have taste receptors that detect sugar at all.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lots of threads on the forums have newbies posting topics wanting to reduce their sugar intake to lose weight, which is a good thing - after all a lot, if not most, people on MFP are here to lose weight!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
Completely Subjective.
Thanks for stopping by, glad of your input!
How is that paragraph subjective - apart from quick energy what does sugar provide the body in regards to nutrition, or anything else for that matter?
You seem to think that it tasting good doesn't mean anything.
As for the overall premise of the OP. It's common knowledge. Read the recommendations of everyone that gives out advice. Generally it's hit your protein and fat minimums, and use carbs to fill out the rest. Generally that requires cutting back on carbs, especially for people who are eating low levels of protein and fat, because the deficit has to come from somewhere.
So it's not "cut back on sugar because it doesn't offer anything (because it does, lots of hormonal regulation is based on the behavior of insulin and sugar, anabolic hormones like igf-1 and hgh are regulated by carbs,) but because minimum amounts of protein and fat are required, and those amounts don't change when you want to create a calorie deficit (they are calculated based on body weight, not a percentage of total calories, after all.)
Insulin is also spiked by protein - but if you cared to re-read my original post I am not suggesting eliminating sugar.
I am suggesting that once you've covered your protein and micro nutrients eat all the damn sugar you want.
I'm just suggesting cutting back on sugar to get you to that deficit - seriously re-read the OP.
What does that mean? It means the average American is over consuming calories, but could also stand to cut back on fat, not just sugar. We eat too much food. To create a deficit, we need to eat less food. Period.
Yep that's why I used the word possibly instead of definitely
0 -
I could very happily eat 3 pomegranates a day. They're my favorites. The only reason I don't is that they're wicked expensive where I live.While I think your original post was too much of an over-generalization, I think if you took every new person on MFP and had them log their regular intake for a week, without changing anything, a lot of them would find that they eat a lot of extra calories from sugary (non-fruit) foods and it would be easy to start with cutting some of those out. I think a lot of people would find the same to be true about salty/fatty foods like chips, though, too. Those foods are all highly palatable, easy to obtain and don't usually require preparation -- you're not likely to find someone who logs their "normal" intake and finds that they're eating an extra 500 calories per day in carrots, but if you did, they'd lose weight by cutting out the carrots. By the same token, if someone doesn't naturally eat a lot of sugar, cutting it out isn't going to do a d@mn thing for their weight loss. There's nothing magical about sugar, it just tends to be an easy and cheap source of calories.
I used to eat like 3 pomegranates in a day (although I spit out the hard part of the seeds), so considering 1 pomegranate can be like 250+ grams when I spit out the seeds... damn I probably did over-eat by 500+ calories when I'd pig out on pomegranates lol.
Moral of the story, if you cut down on calorie-dense foods you will have an easier time losing weight. Has nothing to do with sugar on its own!
I think we agree on the main idea -- for lots of people, it's effective to pinpoint your areas of excess and reduce them. Or reduce everything, but that seems more daunting to me. There's nothing inherent about sugar that links it to weight gain/loss.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
You got the bingo this time.0 -
I'm all for cutting down on sugar and sugary foods. If you are having trouble in restricting the amount of sweet foods that you are having on a daily basis, and you find yourself self-sabotaging a lot, it may benefit you, as it did me.
It's still early days on my lifestyle, but I found that having one week without sugary sweets have helped me put the sugar on the back burner and into a bit more perspective. I am still having sweets, but the time off has helped me to have only some of the sweets, not all of the sweets.
I find that eating sugary foods in the morning (I'm talking to you, Cocoa Pops for breakfast!), then I am a walking belly, needing to feed like all. day. long. If I have a treat (usually a cupcake!) after a meal filled with steamed vegetables, I don't have the extreme sugar spike, and am fine for the rest of the day.
I do recognise, though, that I have a tough time letting sweets live in my cupboards or fridge, instead of in my tum. To change things up for me, I am making a point of eating healthily, and while I am still having treats, I am trying to keep them confined to work, rather than bringing them into the house just now. This is part of all kinds of behaviour mods that are assisting me to re-build my relationship with food.
For some people, avoiding processed sugary foods until they are a bit less reliant (*IF* they are reliant, and that part is based entirely on their life and lifestyle.) may be a good idea. I think that an objective look at feeding habits and their effects can benefit anyone, and perhaps it would help to look at it as a change that might help someone, and should be talked about openly, instead of just derailing a potentially important conversation.0 -
Nope, I'm too blonde.tennisdude2004 wrote: »So do I - I like sugar. I'm just aware it provides nothing to me but energy.
Also cut back this statement is not the same as eliminate or cut out - you do know that don't you?
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Nope, I'm too blonde.tennisdude2004 wrote: »So do I - I like sugar. I'm just aware it provides nothing to me but energy.
Also cut back this statement is not the same as eliminate or cut out - you do know that don't you?
I absolutely adore that film!
And sorry - didn't mean to be mean (it was the extra glass of red)0 -
-
I did cut sugar - and fat - and portions and calories.... So no, sugar isn't the devil, but it does add to calories so I can see why cutting out as much as possible would be desirable if you want to lose weight.
With that said, I still eat whatever I want - just in moderation. Moderation was what I needed to lose weight, not eliminating any food as evil.0 -
If you want to talk to these people so badly, just PM them instead of starting baiting threads in the hopes they will show up. Of course, that is if you/they haven't blocked each other.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
OT: If people want to cut back on sugar, go for it. It's not for me.0 -
If you want to talk to these people so badly, just PM them instead of starting baiting threads in the hopes they will show up. Of course, that is if you/they haven't blocked each other.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
OT: If people want to cut back on sugar, go for it. It's not for me.
0 -
Serious thread!
Just certain people you always want at the party!
0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!!
That's subjective.
It's ironic (or not) that the anti-sugar people seem to be the most obsessed with it. Wonder if there's something about making something forbidden fruit that makes it irresistible. Hmm, what a strange, unheard-of idea, don't know what the genesis of it might be.
I see what you did there...!
0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!!
That's subjective.
It's ironic (or not) that the anti-sugar people seem to be the most obsessed with it. Wonder if there's something about making something forbidden fruit that makes it irresistible. Hmm, what a strange, unheard-of idea, don't know what the genesis of it might be.
I see what you did there...!
0 -
Actually, it's much easier to simply cut back on all foods and still eat everything you love. .
I like to eat pretty good. But I do like a treat every now and then! If it was not meant to be eaten why cook it.. Like brownies, chocolate chip cookies, apple pie, chex mix!
I have to have a delicious treat..
I actually will have one and savor it so much than I did before.
0 -
The problem with cutting sugar is... what happens when you reintroduce it? Will you be able to eat it in moderation? That's the main issue really...0
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »While I think your original post was too much of an over-generalization, I think if you took every new person on MFP and had them log their regular intake for a week, without changing anything, a lot of them would find that they eat a lot of extra calories from sugary (non-fruit) foods and it would be easy to start with cutting some of those out. I think a lot of people would find the same to be true about salty/fatty foods like chips, though, too. Those foods are all highly palatable, easy to obtain and don't usually require preparation -- you're not likely to find someone who logs their "normal" intake and finds that they're eating an extra 500 calories per day in carrots, but if you did, they'd lose weight by cutting out the carrots. By the same token, if someone doesn't naturally eat a lot of sugar, cutting it out isn't going to do a d@mn thing for their weight loss. There's nothing magical about sugar, it just tends to be an easy and cheap source of calories.
I used to eat like 3 pomegranates in a day (although I spit out the hard part of the seeds), so considering 1 pomegranate can be like 250+ grams when I spit out the seeds... damn I probably did over-eat by 500+ calories when I'd pig out on pomegranates lol.
Moral of the story, if you cut down on calorie-dense foods you will have an easier time losing weight. Has nothing to do with sugar on its own!
Yes but some calorie dense food provide more of your micro nutrients.
No one is suggesting don't have a candy bar a day - but if two candy bars put you into a surplus, it's better to cut back one candy bar than to still have two and to cut your calories from food which provide minerals and vitamins needed for a healthy diet.
except if I want to eat 2 chocolate bars, it doesn't put me into a surplus because I can either simply eat to maintenance or I can eat less of other foods. It's called eating to one's caloric goals. Because I eat everything in moderation, I don't bother tracking micronutrients. Chocolate provides both iron and calcium. Seems fine to me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions