Questions about sugar
Options
Replies
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
Thanks much!
Yeah I reading through it, I can see that it was a 3 day study of self reported intake where the obese group at 500 more calories than the non obese group. I wonder why they separated the groups. I mean if you're looking to test the change in a potential health marker in humans then why wouldn't you take 2 groups of similar individuals and alter the diets as opposed to taking a normal bmi group and an obese group and having then eat different intakes, on self reported data over a "grueling" 3 day study.
I think that they wanted to see the differences between the "natural" diets of both groups. I think the information would be useful for designing diets for folks or coming up with suggestions for what constitutes a healthy diet.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »Hrm. I can only read the abstract at home. But after figuring out what a photochemical is the study seems to show a correlation between normal weight and the consumption of vegetables. This doesn't seem to support the claim that a restriction of calories will not lead to weightloss, rather it shows a difference between the diets of healthy and overweight people.
To show a calorie deficit doesn't result in weightloss the experiment would have to be overweight people eating diets rich in photochemicals. One group eating at maintenance and one group at a deficit. If they both loose equal amounts of weight then it's not the restriction.
This is the one with the full reading:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641567/#!po=45.7921
Unfortunately she posted a study that had nothing to do with what everyone was talking about. It's called moving the goal posts. You'll usually see that happen when the person either doesn't know what they are talking about or they realize their points aren't valid in the conversation so they change their stance. The good one move goal posts all day. The no so good ones get upset and run away.
Oh, I am familiar with the tactic.0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more bellmoo yy fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
FYI. I have a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. I am quite comfortable doing research. Perhaps you could attempt to lower the degree of condescension. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. If you look to previous posts I simply said the theory is flawed. The human body is very complex and many issues impact the way we burn fuel
Again with the believing that stating what your completion of education mean anything at all. You have simply failed to answer general science questions, not even theories, straight science but you think that somehow my issue is that I can think outside the box and read something I don't agree with. That's cute. You have stated beliefs, have provided nothing to back up your silly claims and then the things you have said have been so easily picked apart that it's just really boring. So your level of education is actually something I would keep on the back burner because it actually makes you look worse as you spout nonsense.
Your level of aggression on this topic is interesting. I have responded with some of the sources of my information, though granted, a tiny fraction. You, on the other hand, have just spouted your opinion. You are a fabulous example of why I don't get my fitness and nutrition information from these message boards. Enjoy the 202 pages. The gist is that nutritionally dense foods cause less weight gain that nutritionally devoid food when controlling for calorie content.
Correlation =\= causation
Just because nutrient dense foods were found in in greater numbers in normal weight ppl than overweight ppl doesn't mean it caused them to loose weight.
This paper doesn't even seem to take calorie amounts into consideration.
Ppl like you are why *I* don't get my health information from these boards. The misrepresentation of scientific data is staggering.0 -
I'm curious, what do you guys think of aspartame or other artificial sweeteners? I do keep an eye on my sugar, though I don't normally go over it as I don't really eat too many sweet fruits anyway, but I do often have stuff like 0 sugar jello pudding in my morning smoothies. Do you think it matters whether you have sugar or a sugar replacement, so long as your calories are in check?0
-
HeatherZousel wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
FYI. I have a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. I am quite comfortable doing research. Perhaps you could attempt to lower the degree of condescension. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. If you look to previous posts I simply said the theory is flawed. The human body is very complex and many issues impact the way we burn fuel
That right there proves that you don't understand what you're saying when you say CICO.
0 -
girlperson666 wrote: »I'm curious, what do you guys think of aspartame or other artificial sweeteners? I do keep an eye on my sugar, though I don't normally go over it as I don't really eat too many sweet fruits anyway, but I do often have stuff like 0 sugar jello pudding in my morning smoothies. Do you think it matters whether you have sugar or a sugar replacement, so long as your calories are in check?
Personally, meh. I don't recall any research against the stuff. I'm quite fond of diet coke but sugar free jello tastes weird!0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more bellmoo yy fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
FYI. I have a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. I am quite comfortable doing research. Perhaps you could attempt to lower the degree of condescension. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. If you look to previous posts I simply said the theory is flawed. The human body is very complex and many issues impact the way we burn fuel
Again with the believing that stating what your completion of education mean anything at all. You have simply failed to answer general science questions, not even theories, straight science but you think that somehow my issue is that I can think outside the box and read something I don't agree with. That's cute. You have stated beliefs, have provided nothing to back up your silly claims and then the things you have said have been so easily picked apart that it's just really boring. So your level of education is actually something I would keep on the back burner because it actually makes you look worse as you spout nonsense.
Your level of aggression on this topic is interesting. I have responded with some of the sources of my information, though granted, a tiny fraction. You, on the other hand, have just spouted your opinion. You are a fabulous example of why I don't get my fitness and nutrition information from these message boards. Enjoy the 202 pages. The gist is that nutritionally dense foods cause less weight gain that nutritionally devoid food when controlling for calorie content.
Correlation =\= causation
Just because nutrient dense foods were found in in greater numbers in normal weight ppl than overweight ppl doesn't mean it caused them to loose weight.
This paper doesn't even seem to take calorie amounts into consideration.
Ppl like you are why *I* don't get my health information from these boards. The misrepresentation of scientific data is staggering.
Careful now, she's got a master's in Forensic Psychology,
I don't know what that is, but it sounds kinda cool!0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
Thanks much!
Yeah I reading through it, I can see that it was a 3 day study of self reported intake where the obese group at 500 more calories than the non obese group. I wonder why they separated the groups. I mean if you're looking to test the change in a potential health marker in humans then why wouldn't you take 2 groups of similar individuals and alter the diets as opposed to taking a normal bmi group and an obese group and having then eat different intakes, on self reported data over a "grueling" 3 day study.
I think that they wanted to see the differences between the "natural" diets of both groups. I think the information would be useful for designing diets for folks or coming up with suggestions for what constitutes a healthy diet.
Coming to a conclusion that 1 factor was different in the 2 groups then saying that it was that factor that was what the determining factor in the difference in results is flawed. The groups had no control over dietary intake, exercise and one group at 60% more fat than the other. The we have the idea that you take an obese group and a non obese group and that nutrient partitioning would be identical in both or close enough to compare the 2 groups, sorry but that just is reaching.
Did they say that though? What I understood was that it said that it correlates, and is another piece in a bigger puzzle.
Then again reading papers on a phone sucks!0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
Thanks much!
Yeah I reading through it, I can see that it was a 3 day study of self reported intake where the obese group at 500 more calories than the non obese group. I wonder why they separated the groups. I mean if you're looking to test the change in a potential health marker in humans then why wouldn't you take 2 groups of similar individuals and alter the diets as opposed to taking a normal bmi group and an obese group and having then eat different intakes, on self reported data over a "grueling" 3 day study.
Also, if she's so all up in there with her degree and being comfortable with science, she should know that a few cherry picked dodgy preliminary studies mean squat.
0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more bellmoo yy fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
FYI. I have a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. I am quite comfortable doing research. Perhaps you could attempt to lower the degree of condescension. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. If you look to previous posts I simply said the theory is flawed. The human body is very complex and many issues impact the way we burn fuel
Again with the believing that stating what your completion of education mean anything at all. You have simply failed to answer general science questions, not even theories, straight science but you think that somehow my issue is that I can think outside the box and read something I don't agree with. That's cute. You have stated beliefs, have provided nothing to back up your silly claims and then the things you have said have been so easily picked apart that it's just really boring. So your level of education is actually something I would keep on the back burner because it actually makes you look worse as you spout nonsense.
Your level of aggression on this topic is interesting. I have responded with some of the sources of my information, though granted, a tiny fraction. You, on the other hand, have just spouted your opinion. You are a fabulous example of why I don't get my fitness and nutrition information from these message boards. Enjoy the 202 pages. The gist is that nutritionally dense foods cause less weight gain that nutritionally devoid food when controlling for calorie content.
Correlation =\= causation
Just because nutrient dense foods were found in in greater numbers in normal weight ppl than overweight ppl doesn't mean it caused them to loose weight.
This paper doesn't even seem to take calorie amounts into consideration.
Ppl like you are why *I* don't get my health information from these boards. The misrepresentation of scientific data is staggering.
Careful now, she's got a master's in Forensic Psychology,
I don't know what that is, but it sounds kinda cool!
If you're good at it it might lead to a reoccurring role on Law and Order SVU.
I'm sure it's both legit and awesome! But I'd never claim to know what a psych paper is all about (my own background is mol bio) unless I read it hard. I have a feeling the lady didn't read this paper hard. Though to be fair, I've only read it soft
0 -
girlperson666 wrote: »I'm curious, what do you guys think of aspartame or other artificial sweeteners? I do keep an eye on my sugar, though I don't normally go over it as I don't really eat too many sweet fruits anyway, but I do often have stuff like 0 sugar jello pudding in my morning smoothies. Do you think it matters whether you have sugar or a sugar replacement, so long as your calories are in check?
I love Splenda.
Artificial sweeteners have been really, really well tested. Totally safe.
For a small subset of people, they seem to trigger cravings for more sweets, though this effect is by no means universal. If you're not one of those people, enjoy your pudding shake.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't think a rounded 25% of my daily calories via fat was "so low."jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is low on workout days. It's 58g on non-workout days.jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you are wrong here. As luck would have it, this is part of my planned menu for tomorrow.HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
The bottom numbers are my macro goals for the day. The top numbers are what I (will have) logged for the day. Tell me the problem with the Snickers here.
No problem with the Snickers...
...but your fat target seems deleteriously low.
Edited to add: On a weekly basis, I target 24.37% of my calories being from fat. Is that deleteriously low, in your view?
Honestly, it does still sound a little low, but that's admittedly based more on "feel" and "average active adult male" assumptions than on any actual calculations. I didn't actually do any math on these new numbers. (Okay, strike that last statement. I just did some math. Assuming 185 pounds, that's <0.3g/pound, which is "low" fat consumption.)
Your 35g fat limit (when I assumed that was daily) set off my "definitely too low" alarms for someone with a ~2k daily limit...because <0.2g/pound is low enough that I would expect it to negatively impact proper hormone regulation/production.
I'm curious, though, what's your reasoning for keeping fat so low?
Basically, one gram of protein per pound of body weight. That might be a bit on the high side given my body fat percentage, but I don't think it's outrageously so.
Then, 25% of calories from fat. Then, the rest from carbs.
I (try to) eat a consistent amount of protein every day. On lifting days, I eat more calories than other days and skew my weekly allotment of carbs to those days, and eat less fat. On non-lifting days, I eat fewer calories and skew toward fat and away from carbs.
I'm basically on the last bit of losing 110-120 pounds and am starting slowly to bump up my calories to find maintenance before I eventually start to bulk. As I add more calories, they'll go almost exclusively to fat and carbs up to maintenance. The bulking calories above maintenance (150 a day or so) will also be almost all fat and carbs since one gram of protein per pound of body weight will take a pretty small slice out of the additional bulking calories.
Got it. I still think 0.3g/pound of fat is a little lower than optimal based on quite a bit of reading I did once upon a time about the effects on hormone production/regulation (specifically testosterone), but like I said, not crazy low (like when I thought you were eating 35g of fat every day without exception). Something to consider is looking at your macros in terms of g/pound instead of percentages. The percentage approach kind of falls apart if you try to apply it to a deficit/maintenance/surplus.
But this is just another example of how IIFYM works for all kinds of macro ranges (and why IIFYC is actually more accurate...because even if my diet doesn't fit my macros on any particular day/week/month, if it fits my calories, I will make progress towards my weight goal (whatever direction that happens to be from my current weight).
My completely unsolicited advice: as you continue tweaking your macros/calories as you move into maintenance and beyond, I'd recommend you consider bumping up your fat consumption for a while...perhaps to something closer to 0.4g/pound. Many have found some profoundly positive effects from increased fat consumption. Oh, and congrats on your remarkable success in reaching/nearly reaching your goal. 100+ pound loss is a remarkable accomplishment.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?
In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.
I'm not in your group. Ice cream and gelato are maybe a once-a-year thing for me. If I have gelato, I won't be having a bunch of other things that are high in sugar on the same day.
It's wacky and really extreme, I know.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?
In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.
What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......
I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.
I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?
In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.
What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......
I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.
I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.
So you think IIFYM makes people look older.
What do you think causes multiple metabolic diseases and drastically lower BMR? What if I publicly suggested that I believe poor dietary choices cause those? Would you take issue with that claim?
(Oh, sure, I have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make that assertion...
...but I suppose you don't really have any to make your "IIFYM makes people look older" assertion either.)0
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