Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That used to be me. Now I crave salt.sherbear702 wrote: »Sugar is easy to cut out, except 1 or 2 days a month...if you're a girl. Girls, you know what I'm talking about!
Lol. I crave fatty stuff.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
Wouldn't that be awesome if it worked for everyone! When I had no limits, I ate my weight in chocolate and chips and pizza until I was 100lbs overweight. I wonder if they will figure out what makes one person better able to self-moderate than another. I just stay away from those foods now, and for the most part, don't really miss them. Occasionally, I'll get a little craving, but I just eat something else I like. Like nuts. NOM. Or cheese and pepperoni. Or my "low-carb tastes like a mocha latté" coffee. Or I just ignore it and move on.
Meh, we're all different. But I agree that cardio is best in moderation. LOL.
There is a difference between "I have no limits on how much i'm going to eat" and "I have no limits on WHAT I can eat." I fall into the latter group. And because I no longer think of any food as good or bad, or as something that will compromise my weight loss, I really don't feel the need to eat 4 boxes of chocolate in a sitting. I know that I can easily eat more chocolate tomorrow if I wanted to eat more and eating chocolate two days in a row within my calories won't affect my fat loss. So I'm guessing that's the difference in determining whether moderation works for someone.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
I find it interesting how a lot of people seem to find unsustainable cutting back on added sugars. (Not saying it's your case, your post just made me think about it.) I grew up in a household where added fat, salt and sugar were barely used, instead, my mom would use herbs to make the food tastier. (Although, when teaching me how to cook, she was the first to recognise that fat is what tastes good in food.) So, now that I find myself eating foods with more fats and sugar on a regular basis, I actually feel way better and relieved when I get to cut back.
I have to admit though, I also have a similar reaction to you… I told myself no fries for this month. Thought it would be easy because of the above. Now I suddenly find myself craving them.
Also, burgers.
maybe I will buy them tomorrow and do an extra half an hour of cardio.
IMO it might also help if you don't use exercise as a way to be able to eat food. Exercise and consumption are for 2 different purposes, although consumption benefits exercise. I exercise for body composition. I then eat within my allotted calories. I do not do extra exercise to be able to "earn" food, so if I wanted to eat fries I just log it and make it work into my day. And if i go over one day, no big deal.
In terms of feeling better when cutting back, I only feel better physically if I've been pigging out on low-nutrient foods. But there are no psychological differences for me. I just use the "I feel physically ill"' as a sign that I've not been eating in proper moderation lol.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I avoid eating McDonald's mainly because the food is nasty. The kids like it though. Shuddering... double quarter pounder will do if I'm stuck, no bun. Or a grilled chicken salad. I wish better-tasting fast food joints had playgrounds!
I think it's pretty hideous as well. And sure, folks mention the places sugar (and HFCS) hide, and one of them is ketchup in fast food and from the regular market. But I don't think anyone thinks they're getting fat because they have a packet of "ketchup" at mcdonalds.
Nobody ever got fat because they eat ketchup at McD's. And they DO know that. Felonious, fabricated argument is what that is. Putting any concern of sugar aside (and the carb count can get ridiculous for those who must worry about those things), I calculate an "old me" meal from there: Double QP with Cheese, large fry, and a large frappe... that's over a day's worth of maintenance calories. In one meal. That's what gets people fat. The carbs are a concern to me just because I'm low-carb to keep cravings on the DL for the moment, but that's not the issue with the food for everyone. The calorie cost is ridiculous. For everyone! That Double QP without the bun (nothing on it) is still 560cals. I don't care if a little ketchup gets on it, that's still over a third my day's calories. Add the condiments and a salad... sweet baby Jesus. I'm scrimping the rest of the day. Not fun. You eat like that a lot, you are going to gain. Ketchup on it or not.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
I find it interesting how a lot of people seem to find unsustainable cutting back on added sugars. (Not saying it's your case, your post just made me think about it.) I grew up in a household where added fat, salt and sugar were barely used, instead, my mom would use herbs to make the food tastier. (Although, when teaching me how to cook, she was the first to recognise that fat is what tastes good in food.) So, now that I find myself eating foods with more fats and sugar on a regular basis, I actually feel way better and relieved when I get to cut back.
I have to admit though, I also have a similar reaction to you… I told myself no fries for this month. Thought it would be easy because of the above. Now I suddenly find myself craving them. Also, burgers.
maybe I will buy them tomorrow and do an extra half an hour of cardio.
IMO it might also help if you don't use exercise as a way to be able to eat food. Exercise and consumption are for 2 different purposes, although consumption benefits exercise. I exercise for body composition. I then eat within my allotted calories. I do not do extra exercise to be able to "earn" food, so if I wanted to eat fries I just log it and make it work into my day. And if i go over one day, no big deal.
In terms of feeling better when cutting back, I only feel better physically if I've been pigging out on low-nutrient foods. But there are no psychological differences for me. I just use the "I feel physically ill"' as a sign that I've not been eating in proper moderation lol.
Haha.
I will think about that. In general, I don't use it either, I just follow my exercise schedule. My thought process was more - oh well, I will just eat those damn fries and if ever I go a LOT over I will exercise a bit more. That way I get fries and don't feel bad about myself. 0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
I find it interesting how a lot of people seem to find unsustainable cutting back on added sugars. (Not saying it's your case, your post just made me think about it.) I grew up in a household where added fat, salt and sugar were barely used, instead, my mom would use herbs to make the food tastier. (Although, when teaching me how to cook, she was the first to recognise that fat is what tastes good in food.) So, now that I find myself eating foods with more fats and sugar on a regular basis, I actually feel way better and relieved when I get to cut back.
I have to admit though, I also have a similar reaction to you… I told myself no fries for this month. Thought it would be easy because of the above. Now I suddenly find myself craving them. Also, burgers.
maybe I will buy them tomorrow and do an extra half an hour of cardio.
IMO it might also help if you don't use exercise as a way to be able to eat food. Exercise and consumption are for 2 different purposes, although consumption benefits exercise. I exercise for body composition. I then eat within my allotted calories. I do not do extra exercise to be able to "earn" food, so if I wanted to eat fries I just log it and make it work into my day. And if i go over one day, no big deal.
In terms of feeling better when cutting back, I only feel better physically if I've been pigging out on low-nutrient foods. But there are no psychological differences for me. I just use the "I feel physically ill"' as a sign that I've not been eating in proper moderation lol.
Haha.
I will think about that. In general, I don't use it either, I just follow my exercise schedule. My thought process was more - oh well, I will just eat those damn fries and if ever I go a LOT over I will exercise a bit more. That way I get fries and don't feel bad about myself.
I feel like that mindset is okay, but is a BIT pushing it. Reason I think that is mostly because, well.. if you go over your goal you shouldn't feel bad about yourself! Going over your goal would likely result in eating at or under maintenance needs, and would not make you gain 30lbs or something.0 -
And that's completely subjective to the individual. I eat between 3000 and 4000 calories a day for maintenance so 500 calories would be a snack for me. It isn't a matter of specific foods, it's a matter of people overconsuming for their needs. That's where actual education needs to come in. Unfortunately "education" at the moment generally consists of fear mongering and propaganda, not actual knowledge.baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I avoid eating McDonald's mainly because the food is nasty. The kids like it though. Shuddering... double quarter pounder will do if I'm stuck, no bun. Or a grilled chicken salad. I wish better-tasting fast food joints had playgrounds!
I think it's pretty hideous as well. And sure, folks mention the places sugar (and HFCS) hide, and one of them is ketchup in fast food and from the regular market. But I don't think anyone thinks they're getting fat because they have a packet of "ketchup" at mcdonalds.
Nobody ever got fat because they eat ketchup at McD's. And they DO know that. Felonious, fabricated argument is what that is. Putting any concern of sugar aside (and the carb count can get ridiculous for those who must worry about those things), I calculate an "old me" meal from there: Double QP with Cheese, large fry, and a large frappe... that's over a day's worth of maintenance calories. In one meal. That's what gets people fat. The carbs are a concern to me just because I'm low-carb to keep cravings on the DL for the moment, but that's not the issue with the food for everyone. The calorie cost is ridiculous. For everyone! That Double QP without the bun (nothing on it) is still 560cals. I don't care if a little ketchup gets on it, that's still over a third my day's calories. Add the condiments and a salad... sweet baby Jesus. I'm scrimping the rest of the day. Not fun. You eat like that a lot, you are going to gain. Ketchup on it or not.
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
I find it interesting how a lot of people seem to find unsustainable cutting back on added sugars. (Not saying it's your case, your post just made me think about it.) I grew up in a household where added fat, salt and sugar were barely used, instead, my mom would use herbs to make the food tastier. (Although, when teaching me how to cook, she was the first to recognise that fat is what tastes good in food.) So, now that I find myself eating foods with more fats and sugar on a regular basis, I actually feel way better and relieved when I get to cut back.
I have to admit though, I also have a similar reaction to you… I told myself no fries for this month. Thought it would be easy because of the above. Now I suddenly find myself craving them. Also, burgers.
maybe I will buy them tomorrow and do an extra half an hour of cardio.
IMO it might also help if you don't use exercise as a way to be able to eat food. Exercise and consumption are for 2 different purposes, although consumption benefits exercise. I exercise for body composition. I then eat within my allotted calories. I do not do extra exercise to be able to "earn" food, so if I wanted to eat fries I just log it and make it work into my day. And if i go over one day, no big deal.
In terms of feeling better when cutting back, I only feel better physically if I've been pigging out on low-nutrient foods. But there are no psychological differences for me. I just use the "I feel physically ill"' as a sign that I've not been eating in proper moderation lol.
Haha.
I will think about that. In general, I don't use it either, I just follow my exercise schedule. My thought process was more - oh well, I will just eat those damn fries and if ever I go a LOT over I will exercise a bit more. That way I get fries and don't feel bad about myself.
I hope the bloke off the Oatmeal doesn't sue me...0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I avoid eating McDonald's mainly because the food is nasty. The kids like it though. Shuddering... double quarter pounder will do if I'm stuck, no bun. Or a grilled chicken salad. I wish better-tasting fast food joints had playgrounds!
I think it's pretty hideous as well. And sure, folks mention the places sugar (and HFCS) hide, and one of them is ketchup in fast food and from the regular market. But I don't think anyone thinks they're getting fat because they have a packet of "ketchup" at mcdonalds.
Nobody ever got fat because they eat ketchup at McD's. And they DO know that. Felonious, fabricated argument is what that is. Putting any concern of sugar aside (and the carb count can get ridiculous for those who must worry about those things), I calculate an "old me" meal from there: Double QP with Cheese, large fry, and a large frappe... that's over a day's worth of maintenance calories. In one meal. That's what gets people fat. The carbs are a concern to me just because I'm low-carb to keep cravings on the DL for the moment, but that's not the issue with the food for everyone. The calorie cost is ridiculous. For everyone! That Double QP without the bun (nothing on it) is still 560cals. I don't care if a little ketchup gets on it, that's still over a third my day's calories. Add the condiments and a salad... sweet baby Jesus. I'm scrimping the rest of the day. Not fun. You eat like that a lot, you are going to gain. Ketchup on it or not.
I ordered a salad from a restaurant. It supposedly had like 1200 calories in it. Veggies, nuts, and chicken. No dressing. but it was a big-ish salad, so I can sew how it'd be so high. BUT in the past that''d something I'd have eaten on top of my normal meals, and with other food as well, so I was consistently well above maintenance needs. Didn't matter that I was eating something low sugar, it still has excessive calories lol.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
Wouldn't that be awesome if it worked for everyone! When I had no limits, I ate my weight in chocolate and chips and pizza until I was 100lbs overweight. I wonder if they will figure out what makes one person better able to self-moderate than another. I just stay away from those foods now, and for the most part, don't really miss them. Occasionally, I'll get a little craving, but I just eat something else I like. Like nuts. NOM. Or cheese and pepperoni. Or my "low-carb tastes like a mocha latté" coffee. Or I just ignore it and move on.
Meh, we're all different. But I agree that cardio is best in moderation. LOL.
There is a difference between "I have no limits on how much i'm going to eat" and "I have no limits on WHAT I can eat." I fall into the latter group. And because I no longer think of any food as good or bad, or as something that will compromise my weight loss, I really don't feel the need to eat 4 boxes of chocolate in a sitting. I know that I can easily eat more chocolate tomorrow if I wanted to eat more and eating chocolate two days in a row within my calories won't affect my fat loss. So I'm guessing that's the difference in determining whether moderation works for someone.
It's funny how some people feel the need a lot less than others. Feeling the need to eat a whole bag of chips AND chocolate was my norm. And even if I just needed to eat under a calorie level, I would feel the need to choose those foods over others and the drive to continue to eat more (and keep going back into the bag until it's empty) was so strong I'd easily blow my day over and over. Binge and hide. While my husband has always ever been able to have a bit of chips or a cookie and then leave them alone until the next day. Or the day after. No calorie counting. Doesn't feel the need for seconds, keeping his weight pretty static for years and years.
I feel like the separation from those foods has strengthened me so that I could just go back to eat whatever in moderation now. But I'm happy with the way I eat and I still have some to lose, so keeping the momentum of what I'm doing is easier. I really only want what I eat right now. I could eat some sugary sweet, but I don't want it. I'd rather grab a couple handfuls of mixed nuts. For me, considering my past, that's golden. I'll always have to track regardless of what I do though. And I'm fine with that.
0 -
Actually, it's much easier to simply cut back on all foods and still eat everything you love.
Most people who undergo elimination diets for weight loss (as opposed to doing it for medical reasons) are likely to fail, revert back to old eating habits, and this usually means eating more calories again.
No foods have "empty calories" because all calories matter.
This entire post could have basically just been your last line: "the main thing is to get into a calorie deficit" and NOT to cut out foods.
And ETA. I'm eating a huge bowl of frozen raspberries. Which I'm guessing are full of "natural" sugar (they are unsweetened), but I don't actually track sugar so I have no idea. Sugar is sugar is sugar. by your logic this means you also don't eat fruit.
This looks like the perfect response to the OP. Cutting back =/= eliminate0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest thing I ever did to aide in my weight loss. It's simply not needed in so many places it's added.
And, yes, I cut back on heavily refined, highly processed convenience foods as well. No calorie counting, no weighing, measuring, logging.
Just cut back on the crap.
I did this 5 years ago, with lots of cardio. And neither were sustainable because I developed a love for lifting in lieu of cardio (now i pretty much never do it) and I started binging on those "crap" foods until I eventually ditched the entire "lifestyle" i had created. Now that I no longer cut back on anything other than tracking my macros/calories, I eat junk food way less than I used to. Funny how not placing any limits on my consumption, outside of knowing I need to meet my macro needs, has made me automatically opt for other foods instead while still regularly enjoying the junk.
I find it interesting how a lot of people seem to find unsustainable cutting back on added sugars. (Not saying it's your case, your post just made me think about it.) I grew up in a household where added fat, salt and sugar were barely used, instead, my mom would use herbs to make the food tastier. (Although, when teaching me how to cook, she was the first to recognise that fat is what tastes good in food.) So, now that I find myself eating foods with more fats and sugar on a regular basis, I actually feel way better and relieved when I get to cut back.
I have to admit though, I also have a similar reaction to you… I told myself no fries for this month. Thought it would be easy because of the above. Now I suddenly find myself craving them. Also, burgers.
maybe I will buy them tomorrow and do an extra half an hour of cardio.
IMO it might also help if you don't use exercise as a way to be able to eat food. Exercise and consumption are for 2 different purposes, although consumption benefits exercise. I exercise for body composition. I then eat within my allotted calories. I do not do extra exercise to be able to "earn" food, so if I wanted to eat fries I just log it and make it work into my day. And if i go over one day, no big deal.
In terms of feeling better when cutting back, I only feel better physically if I've been pigging out on low-nutrient foods. But there are no psychological differences for me. I just use the "I feel physically ill"' as a sign that I've not been eating in proper moderation lol.
Haha.
I will think about that. In general, I don't use it either, I just follow my exercise schedule. My thought process was more - oh well, I will just eat those damn fries and if ever I go a LOT over I will exercise a bit more. That way I get fries and don't feel bad about myself.
I feel like that mindset is okay, but is a BIT pushing it. Reason I think that is mostly because, well.. if you go over your goal you shouldn't feel bad about yourself! Going over your goal would likely result in eating at or under maintenance needs, and would not make you gain 30lbs or something.
Very true. ^^ I will keep that in mind. 0 -
The "empty calories" thing makes sense if you look at how it was first used. They mean the calories (such as sugar calories) are attached to some food that has no other nutritional value (like you aren't getting any micronutrients from a lot of high sugar snack foods) so they consider those empty (all you're doing is adding the calories to your total while not gaining anything else).0
-
tigersword wrote: »
And that's completely subjective to the individual. I eat between 3000 and 4000 calories a day for maintenance so 500 calories would be a snack for me. It isn't a matter of specific foods, it's a matter of people overconsuming for their needs. That's where actual education needs to come in. Unfortunately "education" at the moment generally consists of fear mongering and propaganda, not actual knowledge.baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I avoid eating McDonald's mainly because the food is nasty. The kids like it though. Shuddering... double quarter pounder will do if I'm stuck, no bun. Or a grilled chicken salad. I wish better-tasting fast food joints had playgrounds!
I think it's pretty hideous as well. And sure, folks mention the places sugar (and HFCS) hide, and one of them is ketchup in fast food and from the regular market. But I don't think anyone thinks they're getting fat because they have a packet of "ketchup" at mcdonalds.
Nobody ever got fat because they eat ketchup at McD's. And they DO know that. Felonious, fabricated argument is what that is. Putting any concern of sugar aside (and the carb count can get ridiculous for those who must worry about those things), I calculate an "old me" meal from there: Double QP with Cheese, large fry, and a large frappe... that's over a day's worth of maintenance calories. In one meal. That's what gets people fat. The carbs are a concern to me just because I'm low-carb to keep cravings on the DL for the moment, but that's not the issue with the food for everyone. The calorie cost is ridiculous. For everyone! That Double QP without the bun (nothing on it) is still 560cals. I don't care if a little ketchup gets on it, that's still over a third my day's calories. Add the condiments and a salad... sweet baby Jesus. I'm scrimping the rest of the day. Not fun. You eat like that a lot, you are going to gain. Ketchup on it or not.
Yes. Subjective. If two or more of your meals a day were often over 2000 cals, then that might become a problem for you over time. I'm currently still losing and female so it is a bigger deal for me. But the rank and file regular Joe probably isn't as active as we are. I admit that the problem is not the one McD's meal, it's eating huge meals all day every day. People just don't realize how many calories they are really consuming. And for some it just creeps up on them. I'm not demonizing McD's, other than I don't like the taste of the food. We eat there occasionally, or other fast food. People need to be told, "if you eat too much too often you are going to gain." I think all the crap floating around, often conflicting advice, confuses people. And again, many just don't realize the calorie costs of most foods.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I avoid eating McDonald's mainly because the food is nasty. The kids like it though. Shuddering... double quarter pounder will do if I'm stuck, no bun. Or a grilled chicken salad. I wish better-tasting fast food joints had playgrounds!
I think it's pretty hideous as well. And sure, folks mention the places sugar (and HFCS) hide, and one of them is ketchup in fast food and from the regular market. But I don't think anyone thinks they're getting fat because they have a packet of "ketchup" at mcdonalds.
Nobody ever got fat because they eat ketchup at McD's. And they DO know that. Felonious, fabricated argument is what that is. Putting any concern of sugar aside (and the carb count can get ridiculous for those who must worry about those things), I calculate an "old me" meal from there: Double QP with Cheese, large fry, and a large frappe... that's over a day's worth of maintenance calories. In one meal. That's what gets people fat. The carbs are a concern to me just because I'm low-carb to keep cravings on the DL for the moment, but that's not the issue with the food for everyone. The calorie cost is ridiculous. For everyone! That Double QP without the bun (nothing on it) is still 560cals. I don't care if a little ketchup gets on it, that's still over a third my day's calories. Add the condiments and a salad... sweet baby Jesus. I'm scrimping the rest of the day. Not fun. You eat like that a lot, you are going to gain. Ketchup on it or not.
Right, I've never seen anyone SAY they got fat from eating ketchup at mcdonalds.0 -
I think it would be great if many people started off the bat knowing about calorie balance or nutrient composition or whatever. I just don't think that is realistic and results secure adherence in the first place.
Yeah, maybe that's the difference. I really don't think it's that complicated, and that it's less likely to result in compliance for many if they get the false idea that dieting means they must eat only skinless, boneless chicken breast (sometimes in absurdly small sizes, whether properly measured or not), and other "diet" foods and generally eat very restrictively to be "good" vs. eating in moderation.
I actually don't think many of the more sensible people on the "clean" or "anti-sugar" side DO eat like that--I imagine most eat in a way that I also find enjoyable. But quite often the focus on "don't eat these bad foods" vs. simply having a positive focus on nutrition seems to me to result in diets that aren't actually as healthy as all that (after all, not eating Twinkies doesn't mean you are replacing them with fruits and veggies or even adequate protein, whereas focusing on eating those things and staying within your calories basically forces you to keep to moderation on the result).
But I'd also be pretty shocked if, this discussion aside, people who eat lots of sweets and are overweight don't already know they are getting lots of excess calories from those sweets and might want to cut down if they need to lower calories. So I'm not really sure what the argument is anymore!
0 -
And I'd bet we'd both be rather appalled (and possibly shocked) by what the 20 something set (who seem to be most of our posters) consider "normal eating". (well maybe I wouldn't be shocked, I teach in a university and see it every day)lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it would be great if many people started off the bat knowing about calorie balance or nutrient composition or whatever. I just don't think that is realistic and results secure adherence in the first place.
Yeah, maybe that's the difference. I really don't think it's that complicated, and that it's less likely to result in compliance for many if they get the false idea that dieting means they must eat only skinless, boneless chicken breast (sometimes in absurdly small sizes, whether properly measured or not), and other "diet" foods and generally eat very restrictively to be "good" vs. eating in moderation.
I actually don't think many of the more sensible people on the "clean" or "anti-sugar" side DO eat like that--I imagine most eat in a way that I also find enjoyable. But quite often the focus on "don't eat these bad foods" vs. simply having a positive focus on nutrition seems to me to result in diets that aren't actually as healthy as all that (after all, not eating Twinkies doesn't mean you are replacing them with fruits and veggies or even adequate protein, whereas focusing on eating those things and staying within your calories basically forces you to keep to moderation on the result).
But I'd also be pretty shocked if, this discussion aside, people who eat lots of sweets and are overweight don't already know they are getting lots of excess calories from those sweets and might want to cut down if they need to lower calories. So I'm not really sure what the argument is anymore!
0 -
sheepotato wrote: »A bigmac has 9g of sugar, Quarter pounder has 10g
So a total of 36 and 40 calories out of the total, some of which is from dairy and tomatoes, if not all. And absolutely no one gets either due to the sugar content (plus I'd bet the fries are a bigger draw for fast food).
I think the past paranoia about fat was stupid--although precisely what some are now repeating re sugar--but anyone who loves fast food due to sugar content vs. salt and fat is a pretty rare bird, IMO.I've noticed the removal or reduction of added sugar in a few items lately like salad dressings and dips. I like where this is heading, but I'm sure there will just be some other ingredient added to excess to make up for the lack of added sugar. Meh.
Yeah, how is it not just the same thing as with fat?
Plus, and yeah, this is perhaps beside the point, salad dressing couldn't be easier to make. If people don't want to eat sugar in their fat free dressing, how about make some with mustard and vinegar (even add olive oil if you don't flip out over fat).
0 -
Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest part of revamping my diet. It was difficult the first few weeks, but was the easiest thing of all.
Sodium has been the hardest thing, for sure. Then red meat.
Had someone asked me, the moment I started, I never would've guessed that sodium would be hardest and junk food would be easiest, but that's how it worked out.
I still take in a lot of sugar, though.0 -
Cutting back on added sugars was the easiest part of revamping my diet. It was difficult the first few weeks, but was the easiest thing of all.
Sodium has been the hardest thing, for sure. Then red meat.
Had someone asked me, the moment I started, I never would've guessed that sodium would be hardest and junk food would be easiest, but that's how it worked out.
I still take in a lot of sugar, though.
Same here. Eliminating candy and sugary junk food is easy after the first couple of weeks - you stop craving it. But salt?? You will NEVER take my salt away from me lol.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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!
You are obviously not acquainted with the brothers of Jerry & Ben.
Oh, and this:
"All parts of the body (muscles, brain, heart, and liver) need energy to work. This energy comes from the food we eat.
Our bodies digest the food we eat by mixing it with fluids (acids and enzymes) in the stomach. When the stomach digests food, the carbohydrate (sugars and starches) in the food breaks down into another type of sugar, called glucose.
The stomach and small intestines absorb the glucose and then release it into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, glucose can be used immediately for energy or stored in our bodies, to be used later."
Sugar has value. Otherwise, why in the world would we have pancreas?
0 -
Because much of it was added IN to replace fat in the first place?lemurcat12 wrote: »sheepotato wrote: »A bigmac has 9g of sugar, Quarter pounder has 10g
So a total of 36 and 40 calories out of the total, some of which is from dairy and tomatoes, if not all. And absolutely no one gets either due to the sugar content (plus I'd bet the fries are a bigger draw for fast food).
I think the past paranoia about fat was stupid--although precisely what some are now repeating re sugar--but anyone who loves fast food due to sugar content vs. salt and fat is a pretty rare bird, IMO.I've noticed the removal or reduction of added sugar in a few items lately like salad dressings and dips. I like where this is heading, but I'm sure there will just be some other ingredient added to excess to make up for the lack of added sugar. Meh.
Yeah, how is it not just the same thing as with fat?
Plus, and yeah, this is perhaps beside the point, salad dressing couldn't be easier to make. If people don't want to eat sugar in their fat free dressing, how about make some with mustard and vinegar (even add olive oil if you don't flip out over fat).
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Apart from a quick source of energy, which i have already eluded to - what does sugar provide the body that other food cannot? simple question.
After a hard workout, nothing restocks muscle glycogen like sugar...
That said, I do agree if one is trying to cut calories, foods with added sugar are the easiest to moderate, IMO...
0 -
redheaddee wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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!
You are obviously not acquainted with the brothers of Jerry & Ben.
Oh, and this:
"All parts of the body (muscles, brain, heart, and liver) need energy to work. This energy comes from the food we eat.
Our bodies digest the food we eat by mixing it with fluids (acids and enzymes) in the stomach. When the stomach digests food, the carbohydrate (sugars and starches) in the food breaks down into another type of sugar, called glucose.
The stomach and small intestines absorb the glucose and then release it into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, glucose can be used immediately for energy or stored in our bodies, to be used later."
Sugar has value. Otherwise, why in the world would we have pancreas?
The unaware will hopefully learn some day. Even in a ketogenic diet with zero carbs, the glycerol component of triglycerides are converted into glucose...
Oh, and I am very well acquanted with the brothers... eat Ben & Jerry's every night!0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I saw it in a discussion on MFP by someone making that argument (not someone making fun of the argument as a hypothetical thing, but someone actually making it).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I saw it in a discussion on MFP by someone making that argument (not someone making fun of the argument as a hypothetical thing, but someone actually making it).
That ketchup from mcdonalds made them fat or an over abundance of added (hidden) sugars made them fat? (neither of which is true).
That said: I'll keep limiting them. a few grams here, a few grams there and bam, I shave off some calories I don't need, and keep my blood sugars and mood happy (and probably contributes to my overall health). And of course, I'll keep limiting the heavily processed, refined and enriched carbs as always (also lowering my overall intake). All without any real effort.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That used to be me. Now I crave salt.sherbear702 wrote: »Sugar is easy to cut out, except 1 or 2 days a month...if you're a girl. Girls, you know what I'm talking about!
Lol. I crave fatty stuff.
Fat + salt is what I find tempting (and lots of other foods too). Luckily, there are reasonably healthy ways to meet that temptation (fat and salt in moderation, of course), as well as the obvious "junk food" ones.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Apart from a quick source of energy, which i have already eluded to - what does sugar provide the body that other food cannot? simple question.
Glucose is pretty much necessary for survival, not just for short term energy.
0 -
legallyblonde916 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Apart from a quick source of energy, which i have already eluded to - what does sugar provide the body that other food cannot? simple question.
Glucose is pretty much necessary for survival, not just for short term energy.
Not that I disagree with the importance of glucose, but in the context you are using, the body can manufacture it's own for survival purposes...0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I saw it in a discussion on MFP by someone making that argument (not someone making fun of the argument as a hypothetical thing, but someone actually making it).
That ketchup from mcdonalds made them fat or an over abundance of added (hidden) sugars made them fat? (neither of which is true).
That people over-consume fast food because it has sugar which is addictive.
I was pretty amazed by that argument too. I don't care for McDonalds anyway (I like fat and salt, but I source it from elsewhere ), but it seems obvious to me that the sugar that happens to be in the burger and fries is not the reason, and if it's the soda it's pretty easy to get soda without also buying a meal.
For what it's worth, I was curious about the grams of sugar so did a bit more research. In a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, there are 740 calories and 9 grams of sugar (or 36 calories). Those sugar grams are from: ketchup (3 grams), onions (1 gram), and the bun (5 grams). Medium fries would add 350 calories, no sugar.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