A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
Speaking of the Twinkie diet, does anyone know if anyone's attempted the opposite (attempting to gain weight by doing nothing but eating boatloads of lettuce and broccoli) and published anything about it? I can't imagine it would be the most fun thing in the world to attempt, but it would be interesting to read about.
Not aware of one - but that would be horrible - and probably more nutrient deficient than a twinkie diet in some ways.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I agree with kgeyser on the last sentence.
Nearly everyone has an objective and that gets back to funding themselves often. The best of research that ends up stating you need XXX AND the best place to buy it is at www.xxxxxx.com does make it questionable to an aware reader.
An example is vitamindcouncil.org/ . I did not have any real problem with any of the linked articles but then promoting one brand hurt the validity of good remarks in my mind.
When from perhaps the National Institute of Cancer I learned Vit D3 levels should not go above 80 with the max range for prevention being 60-80 level readings and from an MD that stated she personally as well some of her patients starting feeling worse when levels rose above 80 gave me the research that makes me comfortable at this point in time. If one is not pushing for cancer prevention aspect of Vit D 40-60 levels seems fine. Levels of 100 does not seem to improve protection but does increase chance of death in the wrong direction heart wise. As with most food or hormone in this case there can be a point that is too little and a point that can be too much of a good thing.
Another case last week was some sugar research that really showed some positive results from sugar usage that was countered by other sugar related data. Looking at the disclaimer the lead author was funded by some major sugar producing/using companies.
This is one reason peer reviewed articles may only mean a group of like minded people are in agreement. Herd mentality is NOT good for critical researching. It is the opposing views one may need to watch to get to the bottom of the actual truth in any case.
One can learn good info from about any source. Data aggregation is a must in my view to be able to be better detect what is factual and what is fictional.
This is a big issue when trying to use MD's for medical advice or a plumber for plumbing advice IF they will stand to profit from such advice.
Bottomline the TRUTH is always changing in the world of HEALTH because of new research being done and reported.
Its really silly to totally discount peer-reviewed studies because of the funding. Take it into account - yes. Discount it entirely - no.
What exactly do you mean by the herd mentality - or is that another passive aggressive dig at all the people that disagree with your stance?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I agree with kgeyser on the last sentence.
Nearly everyone has an objective and that gets back to funding themselves often. The best of research that ends up stating you need XXX AND the best place to buy it is at www.xxxxxx.com does make it questionable to an aware reader.
An example is vitamindcouncil.org/ . I did not have any real problem with any of the linked articles but then promoting one brand hurt the validity of good remarks in my mind.
When from perhaps the National Institute of Cancer I learned Vit D3 levels should not go above 80 with the max range for prevention being 60-80 level readings and from an MD that stated she personally as well some of her patients starting feeling worse when levels rose above 80 gave me the research that makes me comfortable at this point in time. If one is not pushing for cancer prevention aspect of Vit D 40-60 levels seems fine. Levels of 100 does not seem to improve protection but does increase chance of death in the wrong direction heart wise. As with most food or hormone in this case there can be a point that is too little and a point that can be too much of a good thing.
Another case last week was some sugar research that really showed some positive results from sugar usage that was countered by other sugar related data. Looking at the disclaimer the lead author was funded by some major sugar producing/using companies.
This is one reason peer reviewed articles may only mean a group of like minded people are in agreement. Herd mentality is NOT good for critical researching. It is the opposing views one may need to watch to get to the bottom of the actual truth in any case.
One can learn good info from about any source. Data aggregation is a must in my view to be able to be better detect what is factual and what is fictional.
This is a big issue when trying to use MD's for medical advice or a plumber for plumbing advice IF they will stand to profit from such advice.
Bottomline the TRUTH is always changing in the world of HEALTH because of new research being done and reported.
I'm not sure how you can say you agree with me when you provide examples describing times where you've vetted the reliability and validity of research based on your own confirmation bias.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
BOOM back at you, sweetheart!
You are missing the point. When it comes to weight loss only, calories in/calories out is all that counts. Eat less calories than you burn and you will lose weight.
You are what you eat refers to nutrition, energy, and body composition.
The reason you don't gain weight is because you eat enough calories to maintain your weight. The dietary plan you choose is preference only because you can gain or lose weight on any type of diet if you eat more than your body needs.
That's right. Calories in calories out. 500 calories of Twinkies = 500 calories of veggies when it comes to weight loss. Pay no attention to all the studies stating otherwise. The authors are just out to make money. Stating that a calorie is not a calorie is like stating the world is flat. There can be no other way.
Post one.
I want to see one peer-reviewed study that shows people eating at or above TDEE and losing weight because they were eating "clean"/sugar free/keto, or whatever your argument is.
When you say "a calorie isn't a calorie", that's what you're saying. That you can eat above TDEE and still lose weight.
It should be easy to find a study to post since there are sooo many that state this.0 -
Speaking of the Twinkie diet, does anyone know if anyone's attempted the opposite (attempting to gain weight by doing nothing but eating boatloads of lettuce and broccoli) and published anything about it? I can't imagine it would be the most fun thing in the world to attempt, but it would be interesting to read about.
Well, I didn't attempt to gain, but I gained weight as a whole foods vegetarian who watched her carb intake. For the most part, I still have the same diet now that I've had since gaining that weight (it was 30 additional pounds on an already overweight frame). The difference? Smaller portions. I was just eating too much.
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
BOOM back at you, sweetheart!
You are missing the point. When it comes to weight loss only, calories in/calories out is all that counts. Eat less calories than you burn and you will lose weight.
You are what you eat refers to nutrition, energy, and body composition.
The reason you don't gain weight is because you eat enough calories to maintain your weight. The dietary plan you choose is preference only because you can gain or lose weight on any type of diet if you eat more than your body needs.
That's right. Calories in calories out. 500 calories of Twinkies = 500 calories of veggies when it comes to weight loss. Pay no attention to all the studies stating otherwise. The authors are just out to make money. Stating that a calorie is not a calorie is like stating the world is flat. There can be no other way.
What studies?
What is your point?
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »That's right. Calories in calories out. 500 calories of Twinkies = 500 calories of veggies when it comes to weight loss.
Actually that part is correct...
0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....
I guess if you are sedentary that way of eating is fine. But if you are active, my guess is you would bonk.
Some people do well on keto
I guess those would be the snowflakes...
0 -
-
Most scientific journals will publish studies with conflicting findings provided the science is sound. I would consider a scientific journal to be a more reliable source than a website run by researcher's from a university who financially benefit from one researchers fame and book. The website includes pre-made infographics you can distribute that support their bias, for pete's sake. The idea that they are some sort of objective clearinghouse for sugar research is laughable.0 -
Most scientific journals will publish studies with conflicting findings provided the science is sound. I would consider a scientific journal to be a more reliable source than a website run by researchers from a university who financially benefit from one researchers fame and book. The website includes pre-made infographics you can distribute that support their bias, for pete's sake. The idea that they are some sort of objective clearinghouse for sugar research is laughable.
Yep - and which is why you weigh the evidence out there (which includes anecdotal evidence). All studies have limitations and have to be interpreted and attempts made to apply to a wider population - but that does not make them invalid - just not the 'only' thing that should be looked at.0 -
Most scientific journals will publish studies with conflicting findings provided the science is sound. I would consider a scientific journal to be a more reliable source than a website run by researchers from a university who financially benefit from one researchers fame and book. The website includes pre-made infographics you can distribute that support their bias, for pete's sake. The idea that they are some sort of objective clearinghouse for sugar research is laughable.
All science journals are biased. One of their strongest biases is to reject articles that demonstrate the null hypothesis - that is, studies that are unable to demonstrate the link they set out to find.
That is a HUGE problem in science reporting.
It is so prevalent and has been around so long it even has a nickname - "the file drawer effect".
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
BOOM back at you, sweetheart!
You are missing the point. When it comes to weight loss only, calories in/calories out is all that counts. Eat less calories than you burn and you will lose weight.
You are what you eat refers to nutrition, energy, and body composition.
The reason you don't gain weight is because you eat enough calories to maintain your weight. The dietary plan you choose is preference only because you can gain or lose weight on any type of diet if you eat more than your body needs.
That's right. Calories in calories out. 500 calories of Twinkies = 500 calories of veggies when it comes to weight loss. Pay no attention to all the studies stating otherwise. The authors are just out to make money. Stating that a calorie is not a calorie is like stating the world is flat. There can be no other way.
So how about Harvard as a source?
Diet and Weight
"It’s no secret that the amount of calories people eat and drink has a direct impact on their weight: Consume the same number of calories that the body burns over time, and weight stays stable. Consume more than the body burns, weight goes up. Less, weight goes down. "
And a few sentences down:
"Conventional wisdom says that since a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, the best advice for weight control is simply to eat less and exercise more. Yet emerging research suggests that some foods and eating patterns may make it easier to keep calories in check, while others may make people more likely to overeat."
So yes, a calorie is a calorie, but certain macronutrients and foods can help keep your weight under control.0 -
In the context of an overall good diet, nothing is wrong with sugar. In fact, if I am bulking or doing endurance/hypertrophy style weight lifting, then sugar (especially dextrose which can be found in gummy bears) is highly beneficial to replenishing glycogen store to help aid muscle growth.Hey back, people still defending sugar? That empty nutrient stuff?
To Carb or Not to Carb
So again, it all comes back to the total context of a diet. None of us are suggesting going to mainline sugar like it's crack. What we are saying if you can fit it into your diet and still get 80-90% of your foods from whole sources (fruits, veggies, lean proteins, fish, whole grains), then why not. Chocolate and other foods help me stick with an overall great diet. If you want to look at my diary, feel free.. I never hide it.
0 -
In the context of an overall good diet, nothing is wrong with sugar. In fact, if I am bulking or doing endurance/hypertrophy style weight lifting, then sugar (especially dextrose which can be found in gummy bears) is highly beneficial to replenishing glycogen store to help aid muscle growth.Hey back, people still defending sugar? That empty nutrient stuff?
To Carb or Not to Carb
So again, it all comes back to the total context of a diet. None of us are suggesting going to mainline sugar like it's crack. What we are saying if you can fit it into your diet and still get 80-90% of your foods from whole sources (fruits, veggies, lean proteins, fish, whole grains), then why not. Chocolate and other foods help me stick with an overall great diet. If you want to look at my diary, feel free.. I never hide it.
good post..
sadly, no one will even read this correctly...as the anti sugar folks will come in say well "yea, I could eat 2000 calories a day of snickers, but why would I do that..."
ughhhhh0 -
goldthistime wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.
Zhost forgive me for jumping in here, but this debate is pertinent to me personally, because I have gone from trying to avoid sugar to the trying to fit it in camp. Does this "higher BG response from high carb" only suggest you shouldn't eat a high carb diet or does it suggest that you should not eat moderate amounts of sugars/carbs?
In the end it's all CICO for weight loss, but that's where it stops. How healthy you are at the end depends on what you ate to get there. High carb restricted eating will help you lose weight, but I'd be interested in seeing your bloodwork.
High carb? I'm with you, not a good idea. But Zhost, what about a moderate carb, calorie restricted diet, with lots of veggies, lean meats, plant based fats and a moderate amount of sugar? By moderate, I plan to stick fairly closely to the daily sugar limits MFP suggests, perhaps a bit over. I'm not sure yet whether to forego some fruit on a day when I've had extra added sugar or not. Bananas eat up my sugar allotment quickly. Do you believe my blood work would be much different than if I avoided added sugar completely?
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
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions