Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
I definitely agree with this for beginners. Before I actually started tracking calories (this time around), the first 5 pounds I lost were greatly helped by cutting added sugar. It just helps cut calories without actually taking food away for a beginner. I stopped putting sugar in my tea (being a southern girl, this was sad lol), quit drinking coca colas (because it's my crutch and if I have one can, I'll have 3). And while I wasn't specifically aiming for a certain amount of calories being cut, I probably cut out a good 500 by my estimate. I also made an effort not to eat the free desserts we have at work. Didn't needed them for hunger.
I'm definitely not a "sugar is evil" person. My oatmeal contains sugar. My smoothies contain sugar. My fruit obviously contains sugar. But cutting out that unnecessary added sugar can easily eliminate some calories for someone easing into weight loss.0 -
who are you talking about - me or the OP because that is certainly not my position.
You said you agreed with the OP, who had said sugar was the easiest thing for people to cut, but amended it to highly refined and processed foods containing sugar and fat are the easiest thing to cut. Not everyone--not even all fat people--eat lots of that kind of food. Even people who eat lots of junk food (depending on how we define it) don't necessarily eat lots of sugary foods. This current bizarre paranoia where the main problem with eating lots of McD's is there's some sugar in the ketchup or whatever makes no sense to me. There are lots of things to cut besides sugar. I got fat in part because I like fat (not particularly in "highly processed foods" and I haven't actually eaten fast food in years, so not that stereotype either) and because I was eating thoughtlessly in general, so wasting calories on foods I don't even care about that much. So that was how it was easy for me to cut calories.
I think the better message is don't focus in on some food group or ingredient and demonize it (I think sugar in coffee is disgusting, but a tsp doesn't actually add many calories, so if it makes a huge difference in whether you enjoy your coffee, why worry about it?). Instead, eat mindfully, understand where your calories and nutrients are coming from, and cut what makes sense for you to cut.
I also happen to agree that for many--for me specifically--cutting snacking probably helps, not because one necessarily eats lots of sweets (some people likely do, but others do not), but because for me specifically it related to eating extra calories as recreation rather than for any genuine hunger/nutrient reason. However, others enjoy the grazing or 6 small meals way of eating, so me saying "cut down on snacks" might not work for them at all.
Basically, you seemed to wonder why people were arguing with the OP, and I am because I think one-size-fits-all advice is never good. I think people need to understand what they are eating and how it related to them gaining weight and then address their specific issues. As someone who never chowed down on Twinkies and washed them down with Coke or whatever (not that there's anything wrong with that) it rather irritates me that it's assumed that that's how all fat people gained weight and thus what we all need to be told what to do (well, I'm not currently overweight, but you get the idea).
0 -
mmm I haven't made brownies in ages, partially because I've not found a good protein brownie recipe but also because being GF can make baking delicious chewy fudgy desserts a pain
We make delicious GF walnut brownies. Walnuts, sugar, chocolate, egg, a little vanilla, salt and leavening. Lots of omega-3. They're good for the kid to eat, but when I eat them, I eat fewer calories overall, so I haven't made them in forever.
no flour?0 -
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.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »who are you talking about - me or the OP because that is certainly not my position.
You said you agreed with the OP, who had said sugar was the easiest thing for people to cut, but amended it to highly refined and processed foods containing sugar and fat are the easiest thing to cut. Not everyone--not even all fat people--eat lots of that kind of food. Even people who eat lots of junk food (depending on how we define it) don't necessarily eat lots of sugary foods. This current bizarre paranoia where the main problem with eating lots of McD's is there's some sugar in the ketchup or whatever makes no sense to me. There are lots of things to cut besides sugar. I got fat in part because I like fat (not particularly in "highly processed foods" and I haven't actually eaten fast food in years, so not that stereotype either) and because I was eating thoughtlessly in general, so wasting calories on foods I don't even care about that much. So that was how it was easy for me to cut calories.
I think the better message is don't focus in on some food group or ingredient and demonize it (I think sugar in coffee is disgusting, but a tsp doesn't actually add many calories, so if it makes a huge difference in whether you enjoy your coffee, why worry about it?). Instead, eat mindfully, understand where your calories and nutrients are coming from, and cut what makes sense for you to cut.
I also happen to agree that for many--for me specifically--cutting snacking probably helps, not because one necessarily eats lots of sweets (some people likely do, but others do not), but because for me specifically it related to eating extra calories as recreation rather than for any genuine hunger/nutrient reason. However, others enjoy the grazing or 6 small meals way of eating, so me saying "cut down on snacks" might not work for them at all.
Basically, you seemed to wonder why people were arguing with the OP, and I am because I think one-size-fits-all advice is never good. I think people need to understand what they are eating and how it related to them gaining weight and then address their specific issues. As someone who never chowed down on Twinkies and washed them down with Coke or whatever (not that there's anything wrong with that) it rather irritates me that it's assumed that that's how all fat people gained weight and thus what we all need to be told what to do (well, I'm not currently overweight, but you get the idea).
Oh, I see. My bad.
Having read back my post in the light of the OP I see how that was the impression that came across. My thoughts were mainly about simple strategies for new dieters to try out and adopt while getting a "feel" for the way this tool (MFP) can be used to get them going. I think many people get bewildered about food choices to begin with and that discourages them altogether. So, if someone wants to focus in on foods falling in the categories I previously stated that will give them a decent starting point which they can transition from if needs be.
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.
0 -
guess I'm one of the special unicorns then who would not give up sugar for anything and who still loses weight just fine. IIFYM > cutting out calorie-dense foods (and foods can be calorie dense WITHOUT being high in sugar)lemurcat12 wrote: »The argument was that sugar is the easiest thing to cut. Nothing about fat.
In that not everyone eats lots of "highly refined or processed foods which contain concentrated forms of sugar" (let alone combined with other ingredients not the subject of the original post), it's pretty presumptuous to claim that's the best way for everyone to cut calories. It's also not the only (or even main) way that many people eat sugar. Some people even add sugar--wait for it--to make some nutrient dense foods taste better!
I had no idea that people add sugar to caramelise stuff and nutrients and what not! You learn something new every day.
Joking aside, when you say "it's pretty presumptuous to claim that's the best way for everyone to cut calories" (emphasis added) who are you talking about - me or the OP because that is certainly not my position.
It is an easy way for many people, and in my opinion the majority of people, to cut calories. Sugar (especially combined with fat) makes up a lot of snacking outside of main meals - sweets, fizzy drinks, cakes, pastries, doughnuts, chocolate - and where many people rack up calories at an alarming rate. Drilling down on snacking is an easy way to keep your diet in check.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This current bizarre paranoia where the main problem with eating lots of McD's is there's some sugar in the ketchup or whatever makes no sense to me.
There was a point in the 90's where fat was demonized so there a big push to make everything lower in fat. So many restaurants and packaged food makers started adding in extra sugar so that the 'reduced fat' version of their food was still appealing. McDonald's tried out a lower fat burger that used seaweed in place of the fat the 'McLean Deluxe' it didn't go over very well. (It had 10g of fat instead the Bigmac's 26g)
A bigmac has 9g of sugar, Quarter pounder has 10g
The ketchup packets have 2g of sugar each.
I actually think this is down in anticipation of the calorie count on the menus and 'added sugar' coming to nutritional labels, but I don't want to try and find historic McDonald's nutrition information to compare it.
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.
0 -
Different strokes!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.
Hope maintenance is a breeze for you as well. cheers
fwiw, yes, you cut back, if you didn't you wouldn't be losing. right?
Unless you only cut back on something else? Vegetables?0 -
I haven't seen this as an actual thing. Just something that's singled out for hyperbole and mention on MFP.lemurcat12 wrote: »
0 -
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.
0 -
guess I'm one of the special unicorns then who would not give up sugar for anything and who still loses weight just fine. IIFYM > cutting out calorie-dense foods (and foods can be calorie dense WITHOUT being high in sugar)lemurcat12 wrote: »The argument was that sugar is the easiest thing to cut. Nothing about fat.
In that not everyone eats lots of "highly refined or processed foods which contain concentrated forms of sugar" (let alone combined with other ingredients not the subject of the original post), it's pretty presumptuous to claim that's the best way for everyone to cut calories. It's also not the only (or even main) way that many people eat sugar. Some people even add sugar--wait for it--to make some nutrient dense foods taste better!
I had no idea that people add sugar to caramelise stuff and nutrients and what not! You learn something new every day.
Joking aside, when you say "it's pretty presumptuous to claim that's the best way for everyone to cut calories" (emphasis added) who are you talking about - me or the OP because that is certainly not my position.
It is an easy way for many people, and in my opinion the majority of people, to cut calories. Sugar (especially combined with fat) makes up a lot of snacking outside of main meals - sweets, fizzy drinks, cakes, pastries, doughnuts, chocolate - and where many people rack up calories at an alarming rate. Drilling down on snacking is an easy way to keep your diet in check.
Hey, if you have found a way of eating which you like and helps you achieve your goals then more power to you...
0 -
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!0
-
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!
0 -
well, sugar is addictive, and it doesn't fill you up (and if you get full on sugar in the short run, you're just hungrier later), and it makes you want more, and it's really easy to overeat.
it might actually be the devil.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 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!-1 -
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.
0 -
miketoryan wrote: »well, sugar is addictive, and it doesn't fill you up (and if you get full on sugar in the short run, you're just hungrier later), and it makes you want more, and it's really easy to overeat.
it might actually be the devil.
Not sure if SRS.....
I may have MFP Bingo'd with on this post.
0 -
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.-1 -
miketoryan wrote: »well, sugar is addictive, and it doesn't fill you up (and if you get full on sugar in the short run, you're just hungrier later), and it makes you want more, and it's really easy to overeat.
it might actually be the devil.
-1 -
I don't know if it's the easiest. Cutting sugar can be difficult for a lot of people, especially in the early days.
I agree with the poster who advocate a well-rounded approach, not cutting anything out completely, but reducing portions. At the beginning of trying to lose weight, I did cut out sugary sodas, but others may wish to have them in moderation.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