what roll does sugar play in weight loss?
Replies
-
Okay...last study lol. Found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/diets-calories-burned_n_1628055.html
"The research subjects burned about 350 calories per day more on the low-carb diet than on the low-fat, even though they were consuming the same number of calories," Ludwig explained. "That's roughly equal to an hour of moderate physical activity without lifting a finger. On the low-glycemic [plan], they burned about 150 calories per day more than the low-fat diet."0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JimFsfitnesspal wrote: »Every person's body, goals, and knowledge levels are different Grubworm. Get the facts before you decide. It is obvious that there is alot of disinformation on the net and here. Let me know if you have questions.
Yes, 100 grams of carbs is the magic number. Yes, you can gain muscle while losing weight... in fact the more muscle burns more fat.
so 100 grams of carbs is the magic number for everyone regardless of age, sex, weight, height, training regimen, etc? Really??????0 -
Grubworm1943 wrote: »ive always believed weight loss was all in the calories in vs calories out. but someone told me today id probably lose more if i cut out all sugar except natural sugars and the occasional treat. does it really make a difference how much sugar i have as long as im under my calorie goal?
It made a huge difference for me: when I reduced added sugars and refined (bleached, enriched) carbohydrates, I wasn't as hungry, didn't get cravings, didn't get that icky, panicky low blood sugar feeling.
YMMV. Good luck!0 -
JimFsfitnesspal wrote: »Norm is correct in everything I read. You should listen to him.
Limit carbs to around 100 and sugars to as low as you can and you will lose weight by the fistfuls. I'm down 25 pounds of fat and 43 to 35 inch waist in the last year. I added 5 pounds of muscle.
I have lost 89 lb of fat while eating 160-180 g of carbs and my muscles are strengthening and defining just fine, thank you very much. I don't count sugars at all, just as part of my overall carb target.
0 -
in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
0 -
in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
is there anything else that you would need for weight loss besides a calorie deficit???
so saying that all you need for weight loss is a calorie deficit = consume 100% sugar...?
I have never once advocated that anyone consume 100% sugar.
could you lose weight on a diet of a 100% sugar in a calorie deficit, yes; is it the best course of action, no.
To the bolded part, I did say that..I said eat to your calorie goal and hit your macro/micro goal for the day. < but I guess you missed that part?0 -
You can get skinny on a high sugar diet, but your liver might get fat. With my family history of diabetes I'm just as worried about the health of my internal organs as I am about fitting into my skinny jeans. Cue the Lustig hate from a dozen people. 3...2...1...go!0
-
in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
The OP asked: "will I lose more weight if I eat less sugar, even if I keep my deficit either way?" Saying: "No. In theory, for weight loss specifically, it does not matter what you eat, you will lose weight if you have a calorie deficit," does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate to "yes, I recommend that you ignore nutrition and how food makes you feel and eat 100% sugar all day."
Yet for some reason people insist on making that strawman argument.
No one here (or very few people, at least judging by posters) think that it's ideal to ignore nutrition. But there are tons of myths about weight loss, one of the most prominent of which is that some foods have basically magical properties to either cause weight loss or cause weight gain (the old "if I eat a gummi bear but am under my calories, will it not work" question).
I think it is true for most people--certainly for me--that if you eat an overall healthy diet it is easier to lose weight, because you are likely to be more satisfied and feel better. (I know there are exceptions, at least in the short term, because I've met some. We can also debate what's a healthy diet--some things that others who claim to be focused on health do strike me as not healthy or not healthy for me, whereas things I do they might feel that way about.)
What I think is equally true is that it is crucial for people to get honest answers and understand how this works. Telling someone that they must eat less sugar to lose weight is a lie, and does not help them understand, even if they then eat less sugar and were eating enough that that's more healthy. On the other hand, telling someone that they can eat all Twinkies and lose but won't be healthy, probably, or feel good, and that they should pay attention to how the food makes them feel helps them understand and work out what might work for them.
I don't understand why providing this information gets construed as recommending that people act stupid (and I'd consider eating 100% sugar acting stupid). Instead, I have enough respect for others that I think upon being given the facts and experimenting some most people who really want to lose weight and be healthy will figure out that they are better off eating a healthy diet. And for those who don't, well, that's humans for you. I've done plenty of things that I now think better of, and they should be afforded the same choice.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
The OP asked: "will I lose more weight if I eat less sugar, even if I keep my deficit either way?" Saying: "No. In theory, for weight loss specifically, it does not matter what you eat, you will lose weight if you have a calorie deficit," does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate to "yes, I recommend that you ignore nutrition and how food makes you feel and eat 100% sugar all day."
Yet for some reason people insist on making that strawman argument.
No one here (or very few people, at least judging by posters) think that it's ideal to ignore nutrition. But there are tons of myths about weight loss, one of the most prominent of which is that some foods have basically magical properties to either cause weight loss or cause weight gain (the old "if I eat a gummi bear but am under my calories, will it not work" question).
I think it is true for most people--certainly for me--that if you eat an overall healthy diet it is easier to lose weight, because you are likely to be more satisfied and feel better. (I know there are exceptions, at least in the short term, because I've met some. We can also debate what's a healthy diet--some things that others who claim to be focused on health do strike me as not healthy or not healthy for me, whereas things I do they might feel that way about.)
What I think is equally true is that it is crucial for people to get honest answers and understand how this works. Telling someone that they must eat less sugar to lose weight is a lie, and does not help them understand, even if they then eat less sugar and were eating enough that that's more healthy. On the other hand, telling someone that they can eat all Twinkies and lose but won't be healthy, probably, or feel good, and that they should pay attention to how the food makes them feel helps them understand and work out what might work for them.
I don't understand why providing this information gets construed as recommending that people act stupid (and I'd consider eating 100% sugar acting stupid). Instead, I have enough respect for others that I think upon being given the facts and experimenting some most people who really want to lose weight and be healthy will figure out that they are better off eating a healthy diet. And for those who don't, well, that's humans for you. I've done plenty of things that I now think better of, and they should be afforded the same choice.
well said....but something tells me it will fall on deaf ears...0 -
Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.0
-
I think it matters how you feel with sugar. If I eat too much sugar at one time,I feel sluggish and get a headache. My sister is a diabetic and the doctor told her if her blood sugar is low either drink milk or have sugar with a protein. Your blood sugar will spike but it doesn't drop like when you eat just sugar or high-sugar fruit (example banana, kiwi, pineapple). I'm following a balance diet - 2 pieces of fruits, 3 cups of vegetables, meat, protein bars, eggs and whole grain bread. I have no cravings for sugar. I read an article yesterday that people who eat a raw food diet should stay away from high sugar fruit - lead to anorexia. It seems lately a lot of people are pre-diabetic, so they should watch their sugar.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.
You don't have to eat %100 sugar to harm your health, though. All you have to eat is what the average American eats. In other words, too much. Meanwhile, eating no sugar from any source except fruits and vegetables won't harm you at all.0 -
Well, critical thinking has gone critical.neanderthin wrote: »Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.
You don't have to eat %100 sugar to harm your health, though. All you have to eat is what the average American eats. In other words, too much. Meanwhile, eating no sugar from any source except fruits and vegetables won't harm you at all.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.
You don't have to eat %100 sugar to harm your health, though. All you have to eat is what the average American eats. In other words, too much. Meanwhile, eating no sugar from any source except fruits and vegetables won't harm you at all.
wait so if get 100 grams of sugar from added sugar that will damage my health, but 100 grams of sugar from fruit and vegetables does zero harm????
do people really believe this stuff???0 -
It helps initially only because it drains your glycogen and water stores. Basically you're just running off of less sugar, but glucose is NEEDED for energy conversion when it comes to exercise. It can be derived from amino acids and fats, but it mostly comes from carbs consumed.
Weight loss still comes down to CICO. Eating in excess is the cause for weight gain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.
You don't have to eat %100 sugar to harm your health, though. All you have to eat is what the average American eats. In other words, too much. Meanwhile, eating no sugar from any source except fruits and vegetables won't harm you at all.
wait so if get 100 grams of sugar from added sugar that will damage my health, but 100 grams of sugar from fruit and vegetables does zero harm????
do people really believe this stuff???
The fiber helps, but if I eat 100g of sugar every day, I will have problems with energy and appetite control. Long term, I don't know what will happen to me, but I know I'll be fat again. So I'll just follow The WHO guidelines on limiting added sugar as well as fruit juices and other low or no fiber sources and if I have some Summer berries along the way, I won't fret for my liver.
0 -
Just for the record, a strawman argument is an argument that you yourself make, just so you can prove it false, thus making yourself look like a winner.
It's not an argument that someone else makes that you disagree with.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.
You don't have to eat %100 sugar to harm your health, though. All you have to eat is what the average American eats. In other words, too much. Meanwhile, eating no sugar from any source except fruits and vegetables won't harm you at all.
wait so if get 100 grams of sugar from added sugar that will damage my health, but 100 grams of sugar from fruit and vegetables does zero harm????
do people really believe this stuff???
The basic thought process for this type of thinking would be that if a persons diet consisted of 100g's of added sugar they would be consuming processed foods in the form of packaged and fast foods. What percentage of calories would that constitute? It would depend on what type of processed or fast food.....therefore mostly calorie dense that would piggy back those 100g's of added sugar. 100g's of sugars from fruit and vegetable would constitute food from whole food, which can be considered nutrient dense. Where it goes off the rails is when people think in extremes. We all know that consuming a calorie dense diet consisting of processed and fast foods with lots of sugar is not the smartest thing a person can consume and most here don't but it doesn't stop people from using that example of why we shouldn't eat refined sugars. and the beat goes on, and on and on.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
The OP asked: "will I lose more weight if I eat less sugar, even if I keep my deficit either way?" Saying: "No. In theory, for weight loss specifically, it does not matter what you eat, you will lose weight if you have a calorie deficit," does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate to "yes, I recommend that you ignore nutrition and how food makes you feel and eat 100% sugar all day."
Yet for some reason people insist on making that strawman argument.
No one here (or very few people, at least judging by posters) think that it's ideal to ignore nutrition. But there are tons of myths about weight loss, one of the most prominent of which is that some foods have basically magical properties to either cause weight loss or cause weight gain (the old "if I eat a gummi bear but am under my calories, will it not work" question).
I think it is true for most people--certainly for me--that if you eat an overall healthy diet it is easier to lose weight, because you are likely to be more satisfied and feel better. (I know there are exceptions, at least in the short term, because I've met some. We can also debate what's a healthy diet--some things that others who claim to be focused on health do strike me as not healthy or not healthy for me, whereas things I do they might feel that way about.)
What I think is equally true is that it is crucial for people to get honest answers and understand how this works. Telling someone that they must eat less sugar to lose weight is a lie, and does not help them understand, even if they then eat less sugar and were eating enough that that's more healthy. On the other hand, telling someone that they can eat all Twinkies and lose but won't be healthy, probably, or feel good, and that they should pay attention to how the food makes them feel helps them understand and work out what might work for them.
I don't understand why providing this information gets construed as recommending that people act stupid (and I'd consider eating 100% sugar acting stupid). Instead, I have enough respect for others that I think upon being given the facts and experimenting some most people who really want to lose weight and be healthy will figure out that they are better off eating a healthy diet. And for those who don't, well, that's humans for you. I've done plenty of things that I now think better of, and they should be afforded the same choice.
Norm pointed out how a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin spikes that lead to hunger, thus defeating the ability to stay within CICO.
Is that untrue? Is Norm wrong?
No one -- except Ndj -- suggested that eating sugar = eating a diet 100% in sugar.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Reducing sugar means eliminating it and not worrying about sugar means you can eat 100% sugar......yeah, that's how it works for all the critical thinker out there, of course of course.
You don't have to eat %100 sugar to harm your health, though. All you have to eat is what the average American eats. In other words, too much. Meanwhile, eating no sugar from any source except fruits and vegetables won't harm you at all.
wait so if get 100 grams of sugar from added sugar that will damage my health, but 100 grams of sugar from fruit and vegetables does zero harm????
do people really believe this stuff???
The basic thought process for this type of thinking would be that if a persons diet consisted of 100g's of added sugar they would be consuming processed foods in the form of packaged and fast foods. What percentage of calories would that constitute? It would depend on what type of processed or fast food.....therefore mostly calorie dense that would piggy back those 100g's of added sugar. 100g's of sugars from fruit and vegetable would constitute food from whole food, which can be considered nutrient dense. Where it goes off the rails is when people think in extremes. We all know that consuming a calorie dense diet consisting of processed and fast foods with lots of sugar is not the smartest thing a person can consume and most here don't but it doesn't stop people from using that example of why we shouldn't eat refined sugars.
I agree with this. Except weirdos like me, who can easily eat 100+ grams of dried fruits like raisins and then go looking for more. Some of us just have satiety issues that we have to control more carefully than others lest we suffer the health effects of being overweight on a diet that is perfectly fine for others.0 -
Grubworm1943 wrote: »ive always believed weight loss was all in the calories in vs calories out. but someone told me today id probably lose more if i cut out all sugar except natural sugars and the occasional treat. does it really make a difference how much sugar i have as long as im under my calorie goal?
It depends...it's not that cut and dry. Most people, particularly those that basically eat the SAD could cut back on their sugar consumption...nobody needs to be washing down their lunch and dinner with 40 ounce Big Gulp sodas.
Beyond that, you do have to consider medical conditions such as diabetes, pre-diabetes, PCOS, etc...sugar is going to have an impact on health here as well as having an impact on the ability to lose fat. Many overweight people also have insulin sensitivities even if they don't have a full blown medical condition and could stand to cut back on sugar and carbs in general (note I didn't say going "low carb"...just moderating intake).
For the average, and otherwise basically healthy Joe or Jane who consumes a moderate amount of sugar, there is no issue where health or weight loss is concerned.
As with most things, context is important...matters of nutrition and health are not usually black and white...you can't just say, "good" or "bad"...context is important to the conversation.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
The OP asked: "will I lose more weight if I eat less sugar, even if I keep my deficit either way?" Saying: "No. In theory, for weight loss specifically, it does not matter what you eat, you will lose weight if you have a calorie deficit," does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate to "yes, I recommend that you ignore nutrition and how food makes you feel and eat 100% sugar all day."
Yet for some reason people insist on making that strawman argument.
No one here (or very few people, at least judging by posters) think that it's ideal to ignore nutrition. But there are tons of myths about weight loss, one of the most prominent of which is that some foods have basically magical properties to either cause weight loss or cause weight gain (the old "if I eat a gummi bear but am under my calories, will it not work" question).
I think it is true for most people--certainly for me--that if you eat an overall healthy diet it is easier to lose weight, because you are likely to be more satisfied and feel better. (I know there are exceptions, at least in the short term, because I've met some. We can also debate what's a healthy diet--some things that others who claim to be focused on health do strike me as not healthy or not healthy for me, whereas things I do they might feel that way about.)
What I think is equally true is that it is crucial for people to get honest answers and understand how this works. Telling someone that they must eat less sugar to lose weight is a lie, and does not help them understand, even if they then eat less sugar and were eating enough that that's more healthy. On the other hand, telling someone that they can eat all Twinkies and lose but won't be healthy, probably, or feel good, and that they should pay attention to how the food makes them feel helps them understand and work out what might work for them.
I don't understand why providing this information gets construed as recommending that people act stupid (and I'd consider eating 100% sugar acting stupid). Instead, I have enough respect for others that I think upon being given the facts and experimenting some most people who really want to lose weight and be healthy will figure out that they are better off eating a healthy diet. And for those who don't, well, that's humans for you. I've done plenty of things that I now think better of, and they should be afforded the same choice.
Norm pointed out how a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin spikes that lead to hunger, thus defeating the ability to stay within CICO.
Is that untrue? Is Norm wrong?
No one -- except Ndj -- suggested that eating sugar = eating a diet 100% in sugar.
please find the exact quote where I told OP, or anyone for that matter, to eat 100% sugar...
one again you are being intentionally obtuse and trying to play some strange semantic game, while contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Protein leads to insulin spikes too, so are you suggesting that should be restricted/avoided?
0 -
in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
You did.
You said "calorie deficit is all you need."
All : means "everything," "100%," "nothing else"
Need: means "necessary," "obligation," "essential"
So if a calorie deficit is all you need, and the amount of sugar you eat plays no part in it, then a diet of 100% sugar is just fine -- is exactly what you are saying.
If you mean to say "Don't worry about sugar if you eat it within the normal percentage of carbs, protein, and fats in your daily diet," then say that.
He did say that. It's very first sentence of the post you quoted.in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness
who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
0 -
I only read the first handful of responses, and while I generally agree with them, I will say that if your macros are WAY out of balance, then it can make a difference. It's not nearly as big of a deal as cals in vs cals out (gotta have that in check regardless of everything else).
Macros are generally more important for body comp goals (fat loss vs scale weight loss), but I have seem some people respond better to cutting cals by dialing back sugars vs a more general reduction in calories. Again, this is more apt to be the case for people whose macros are way out of balance and the majority of their calories are coming from sugars/carbs. At least IME.0 -
Maintaining blood sugar level is key to sticking to a good eating routine. When your sugar level spikes, then falls, it induces the hunger pangs and we make bad food decisions like munching on food with no nutrition at work. Hence, one should avoid the starchy carbs as well as sugars.
2 reasons - to stabilize blood sugar, and to avoid filling up on food with no nutritional value. Sure you can eat all your calories in MnMs, but your body will break down if you don't feed it the good food.
nice straw man argument about eating M&M's all day. Please tell me how is making that argument, or where OP ever mentioned that. You can eat sugar and in the context of an overall diet not have to word about it.
Protein spikes insulin too, so should that be restricted…???????
I am re quoting what norm said, and my reply.
I clearly said you can eat sugar in the context of an overall diet and not have to worry about it.
for clarification context of overall diet would be hitting calorie/micro/macro goal for the day....
Deidere - please stop misrepresenting what I am saying and trying to put words into my mouth.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just for the record, a strawman argument is an argument that you yourself make, just so you can prove it false, thus making yourself look like a winner.
It's not an argument that someone else makes that you disagree with.
No one said it was.
The strawman in this context is that people are supposedly recommending that you eat 100% sugar (or, as more typically phrased, Twinkies all day). Since saying "yes, you can eat any amount of sugar and, if you stay in a calorie deficit, lose weight" is NOT saying "wow, I really think it's best to eat a diet of Twinkies with the occasional poptart and Ding Dong," the 100% sugar argument is a strawman argument.
The oh so earnest explanations that it's not healthy to eat a diet of Twinkies are attacking an argument that no one made. Why this is done constantly is beyond me. It's annoying and kind of rude in that it fails to take the opposing points honestly and on their face and instead twists them to be saying something that no one does (that eating unhealthy is great!).0 -
Norm pointed out how a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin spikes that lead to hunger, thus defeating the ability to stay within CICO.
Is that untrue? Is Norm wrong?
Your rendition of Norm's point seems to have no relationship to what he actually said (now that I have checked). In an alternative world where he did say what you said, then it would have been true. However--and more important for the current discussion--it also would have been unresponsive to the original question, which asked "if I stay within a calorie deficit, will I lose more if I cut sugar." No one denies that what you eat will affect how easy it is to stay in a deficit (although precisely how it differs from person to person varies), but here the OP wasn't saying that staying in a deficit was an issue.
Also, if we assume that the OP is not eating excessive amounts of sugar (or a diet "high in sugar") and doesn't have insulin problems, there's no reason to assume that eating sugar is going to prevent him from staying in a deficit. I sometimes eat added sugar and sometimes eat very little, and it doesn't make much of a difference on whether I can stay in a deficit (other things matter far more). Clearly, if I tried to eat a diet of mostly cake it would be more challenging, but that would be silly.
What Norm actually said, for the record, was also completely unresponsive to the OP's post:Sugar is high in calories make...plus no nutritional value. Anyone who says just east less to lose weight is missing the link that the body needs to have nutritional food to sustain itself, otherwise you will start having medical issues, calorie deficit or not.
Also, sugar is not especially high in calories (as I like to point out, far more of the calories in my a cookie recipe come from butter). And even more significantly, this post seems to assume that not cutting sugar down to some low level means that you are not eating nutritional foods and eating a diet so poor that you have medical issues. Clearly, that's a silly assumption (one might even say that it's a strawman argument--eat less to lose weight is torn down by claiming that if you eat less but it's all nutrition-free sugar, you will be have issues). So the question to him "who recommended eating only sugar?" is a completely fair one!
0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions