Questions about sugar

Options
1568101121

Replies

  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
    And...go

    How?
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
    And...go

    Nice try. Though I'm sure it would be a laugh to see the "sources" for your "research".



  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Sugar eventually becomes insuline, and insuline is what, at the end of the road, becomes fat. It does makes you fat. But the key on this is to lower the consumption, not giving it up. As long as you don't get overdosed, it'll be just fine.

    Over consumption of food makes us fat, not insulin.
  • HeatherZousel
    HeatherZousel Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Sciency. Good word. No it doesn't go through you, but unless you just ran a marathon and your muscles are empty of glycogen it will store as fat. Don't worry. I won't be pulling that snickers away from you. I will undoubtedly eat one now and then. I just won't try to convince myself that I am doing something good for my body. I will enjoy it like the treat that it is.
    I do have a decent grasp of the way the human body works. I don't have a degree in nutrition but give me the contact information of a licensed nutritionist that would recommend eating snickers over fruit and I will send you a case of snickers as my sincere apology for soundy sciency

    Please, save the I have a degree in this or that. Plenty of people come in here trying to pull that card and get the rug pulled out right from under them when they can't keep up.

    Explain to me why your muscles would have to be completely empty in order for the glycogen to store that resulted from the snickers? We can store between 400 and 500 grams of glycogen in our muscle but you're saying it has to be fully depleted for glycogen to store from it? So if you take a sweet potato and it results in glycogen to be stored, will it store as fat unless your stores are depleted? Or does your body decide that since it came from a sweet potato that it can be stored in the muscle?

    When your body stores body fat as a result of insulin spikes where do you think your body pulls some of the energy it needs to get through its daily activities? Don't we burn and store fat all day? Following your logic would it be safe to assume that you believe that even in a caloric deficit we can get fatter if we have high sugar intakes?

    I said I DON'T have a degree in nutrition. Not that I do. I haven't read all the science out there on nutrition ut I have read alot. Obviously, if your muscles glycogen storage is full then it is full regardless of the source, but there is a much lower glycogen conversation in sweet potato s snickers and the sweet potato gets converted slower.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Sciency. Good word. No it doesn't go through you, but unless you just ran a marathon and your muscles are empty of glycogen it will store as fat. Don't worry. I won't be pulling that snickers away from you. I will undoubtedly eat one now and then. I just won't try to convince myself that I am doing something good for my body. I will enjoy it like the treat that it is.
    I do have a decent grasp of the way the human body works. I don't have a degree in nutrition but give me the contact information of a licensed nutritionist that would recommend eating snickers over fruit and I will send you a case of snickers as my sincere apology for soundy sciency

    Please, save the I have a degree in this or that. Plenty of people come in here trying to pull that card and get the rug pulled out right from under them when they can't keep up.

    Explain to me why your muscles would have to be completely empty in order for the glycogen to store that resulted from the snickers? We can store between 400 and 500 grams of glycogen in our muscle but you're saying it has to be fully depleted for glycogen to store from it? So if you take a sweet potato and it results in glycogen to be stored, will it store as fat unless your stores are depleted? Or does your body decide that since it came from a sweet potato that it can be stored in the muscle?

    When your body stores body fat as a result of insulin spikes where do you think your body pulls some of the energy it needs to get through its daily activities? Don't we burn and store fat all day? Following your logic would it be safe to assume that you believe that even in a caloric deficit we can get fatter if we have high sugar intakes?

    I said I DON'T have a degree in nutrition. Not that I do. I haven't read all the science out there on nutrition ut I have read alot. Obviously, if your muscles glycogen storage is full then it is full regardless of the source, but there is a much lower glycogen conversation in sweet potato s snickers and the sweet potato gets converted slower.

    Why would this necessarily be a good thing? Sounds like you're making a compelling case for a situation where the Snickers might be a better choice than an alternative (such as sweet potatoes).
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    jenhill76 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    jenhill76 wrote: »
    Thank you everyone! I'm not going to worry about it so long as it's "healthy" and natural sugar I'm consuming... and not from a snickers bar haha!

    You asked a question, we're given the same answer by maybe 10 people and you got 1 person that clicked a link she didn't understand and you decided to follow that 1 person. Well done. Why bother asking when you knew the answer you wanted?

    RUDE MUCH??? I'm not following that advice... I'm saying I'm not going to worry about the sugar from HEALTHY foods. Stay off my post if you can't be NICE!

    I would like to hear more of where you're coming from. Please share with me what you believe sugars from healthy foods are.

    I tend to think that all foods are healthy in moderation to one's overall diet.
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Sciency. Good word. No it doesn't go through you, but unless you just ran a marathon and your muscles are empty of glycogen it will store as fat. Don't worry. I won't be pulling that snickers away from you. I will undoubtedly eat one now and then. I just won't try to convince myself that I am doing something good for my body. I will enjoy it like the treat that it is.
    I do have a decent grasp of the way the human body works. I don't have a degree in nutrition but give me the contact information of a licensed nutritionist that would recommend eating snickers over fruit and I will send you a case of snickers as my sincere apology for soundy sciency

    Please, save the I have a degree in this or that. Plenty of people come in here trying to pull that card and get the rug pulled out right from under them when they can't keep up.

    Explain to me why your muscles would have to be completely empty in order for the glycogen to store that resulted from the snickers? We can store between 400 and 500 grams of glycogen in our muscle but you're saying it has to be fully depleted for glycogen to store from it? So if you take a sweet potato and it results in glycogen to be stored, will it store as fat unless your stores are depleted? Or does your body decide that since it came from a sweet potato that it can be stored in the muscle?

    When your body stores body fat as a result of insulin spikes where do you think your body pulls some of the energy it needs to get through its daily activities? Don't we burn and store fat all day? Following your logic would it be safe to assume that you believe that even in a caloric deficit we can get fatter if we have high sugar intakes?

    I said I DON'T have a degree in nutrition. Not that I do. I haven't read all the science out there on nutrition ut I have read alot. Obviously, if your muscles glycogen storage is full then it is full regardless of the source, but there is a much lower glycogen conversation in sweet potato s snickers and the sweet potato gets converted slower.

    I think maybe it gets broken down/digested slower, the actual chemistry should be the same once it's taken up into your body.

    I think.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Obviously, if your muscles glycogen storage is full then it is full regardless of the source, but there is a much lower glycogen conversation in sweet potato s snickers and the sweet potato gets converted slower.

    Why and why would it matter?
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jenhill76 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jenhill76 wrote: »
    I really, really want a Snickers bar right now. I'm sick. A Snickers should take pity on me and materialize in my living room so I could eat it.

    I really want one now too... lol!

    Isn't that unhealthy???

    yep. Not healthy. But you people make me stress me out. haha!

    Remind me why it's not healthy???

    Uh... ever heard of insulin resistance? Metabolic syndrome? Type 2 diabetes, perhaps?

    Even people with those medical issues moderate their sugar. Perhaps they don't eat the entire snickers bar.

    A snickers bar is not unhealthy, but the over consumption of same might affect one's health if they have medical issues.

    Sugar does not cause any of those medical issues.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    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. :)

    Look, I don't know if you realize, but when you lose fat from your face you're going to look older. If your skin doesn't have sufficient elasticity to snap back (more likely when you lose a lot of weight vs a little), you're going to look even older than you would have otherwise, because your skin will sag more. You will have more wrinkles.

    There is a reason why cosmetic surgeons use fillers, implants, and, yes, fat transplants to make people look younger.

    You can't take your observations and make any legitimate conclusions about the effects of sugar intake on aging.

    ETA: Should have said, lose enough fat from your face. Obviously up to a point your face just looks thinner, not older ...
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
    And...go

    what little credibility you had..... gone.
  • HeatherZousel
    HeatherZousel Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Sciency. Good word. No it doesn't go through you, but unless you just ran a marathon and your muscles are empty of glycogen it will store as fat. Don't worry. I won't be pulling that snickers away from you. I will undoubtedly eat one now and then. I just won't try to convince myself that I am doing something good for my body. I will enjoy it like the treat that it is.
    I do have a decent grasp of the way the human body works. I don't have a degree in nutrition but give me the contact information of a licensed nutritionist that would recommend eating snickers over fruit and I will send you a case of snickers as my sincere apology for soundy sciency

    Please, save the I have a degree in this or that. Plenty of people come in here trying to pull that card and get the rug pulled out right from under them when they can't keep up.

    Explain to me why your muscles would have to be completely empty in order for the glycogen to store that resulted from the snickers? We can store between 400 and 500 grams of glycogen in our muscle but you're saying it has to be fully depleted for glycogen to store from it? So if you take a sweet potato and it results in glycogen to be stored, will it store as fat unless your stores are depleted? Or does your body decide that since it came from a sweet potato that it can be stored in the muscle?

    When your body stores body fat as a result of insulin spikes where do you think your body pulls some of the energy it needs to get through its daily activities? Don't we burn and store fat all day? Following your logic would it be safe to assume that you believe that even in a caloric deficit we can get fatter if we have high sugar intakes?

    I said I DON'T have a degree in nutrition. Not that I do. I haven't read all the science out there on nutrition ut I have read alot. Obviously, if your muscles glycogen storage is full then it is full regardless of the source, but there is a much lower glycogen conversation in sweet potato s snickers and the sweet potato gets converted slower.

    The conversation isn't much lower. You're pulling that out of thin air.

    It takes approximately 7g pet lb of lbm in order to go from depletion to full glycogen stores. I would love to see you find people that fit the category of walking around with maxed out glycogen stores while in deficit. You ignored most of the questions I asked. Great job.
    Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
    And...go

    Your logic and knowledge is flawed. Your debating of science is boring. You might want us to flame you but the truth is as its said above, you're boring. It's to debate against people that not only are not on the same playing field, they're not even in the same sport. Try again in a few years.

    You amuse me. Read something outside you comfort zone.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    My old man IIFYM face :( So sad now...

    66A735FD-9D7E-46AA-AB6A-920FF9C0CF33.jpg

    Just kidding...I look fantastic for nearly 40...
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
    And...go

    Can they create energy from nothing? If so, that makes them a perpetual energy machine and the government would like to study them to create a renewable energy resource.
    Can they make energy disappear? If so that means they are a black hole
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    • I have great skin. Everyone says so.
    • I don't care for Snickers. Cheap chocolate.
    • About 10% of the American populace has diabetes, about a quarter of that undiagnosed.
    • I am a type 2 diabetic in remission. I watch sugar of course. I watch it but don't try and get rid of all of it. Some carbs like rice hits me worse than sugar.
    • My body does not distinguish between the "all natural" sugar from honey and HFCS. It's all the same as far as my body is concerned.
  • HeatherZousel
    HeatherZousel Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    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.

    You say this study and that study but I don't see a link to said studies.