Matt Lauer proving why no-sugar does't work
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »personally it is easier for me to give up sugar and use my calories for healthier options. i am not able to measure out 1/2 cup of ice cream and then leave it alone, if i eat sugar i crave more sugar. i have been eating Quest bars but i am starting to eat them too often so i don't plan on buying anymore for awhile. the last Quest bar that i ate had only 1 gram of sugar, plus 17g of fiber, and 21g of protein. i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. i also try to get the most nutrition from my calories. i think you have to do what works for you and listen to your body. i admire those who can practice moderation!
This post is an example of why this debate happens. This person associates sugar as bad for them, on account of cravings. So she must avoid things like ice cream. But then proceeded to say she isn't buying any more Quest bars because she is eating them too often, despite the fact they only have 1g of sugar. It therefore seems reasonable to think that this person has a misguided fear of sugar.
No, it is completely unreasonable to think that. She clearly stated she tries to not keep foods in the house that she overeats...which is perfectly reasonable and taking personal responsibility. She mentioned sugar and ice cream. And then mentioned a low sugar item which she also avoids for the same reason...she eats too much of it. I don't know where you get the idea she is "afraid" of sugar. Perhaps you read a different post and replied to the wrong person?
No, I don't think so. It stands to reason. this person obviously is relating overeating to something else. Otherwise the nutrition information, including the sugar, wouldn't have been included.
If sugar routinely makes her overeat, she is relating sugar to overeating. She also relates Quest bars to overeating, and she has very clearly stated they do NOT have a lot of sugar. Thus, she she was pretty clear that ANY food she over eats she tried not to keep at home. She actually wrote these words..."i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. "
This seems pretty simple to me.
Sugar doesn't MAKE her overeat. She chooses to overeat things that have sugar in them. Not keeping them in the house is a good choice for her.
However, she needs to learn how not to overeat. The fact that she now has a food that doesn't have a lot of sugar that she's overeating says a lot, doesn't it? when does she get to the point where she's not keeping any food in the house?
How is keeping food you overeat out of the house not a method of learning not to overeat? You can't overeat it if it's not there, right?
You can if you get offered it places besides the house, so if that happens putting all your eggs in the avoidance basket might not be helpful.
But it also might, if your house was the place you were in the habit of eating it, of course.
Even if you are offered it outside your home and you do over-indulge, that doesn't mean you will have overeaten for more than that day. Most everyone has high calorie days. Keeping troublesome foods out of the house can be a good way to keep those days to a minimum.
Yes, it can be. (Which is, of course, what I said.)
But for me, the main place I used to eat sweets was work or restaurants. I keep more sweets at home on a regular basis now that I ever did before. When I ate sweets at home I'd impulse buy them on the way home, not keep them there (most sweets I like are perishable, other than ice cream).
So avoidance was never an option. I had to learn to say no or eat some in moderation. (With sweets at work I mostly say no.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »personally it is easier for me to give up sugar and use my calories for healthier options. i am not able to measure out 1/2 cup of ice cream and then leave it alone, if i eat sugar i crave more sugar. i have been eating Quest bars but i am starting to eat them too often so i don't plan on buying anymore for awhile. the last Quest bar that i ate had only 1 gram of sugar, plus 17g of fiber, and 21g of protein. i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. i also try to get the most nutrition from my calories. i think you have to do what works for you and listen to your body. i admire those who can practice moderation!
This post is an example of why this debate happens. This person associates sugar as bad for them, on account of cravings. So she must avoid things like ice cream. But then proceeded to say she isn't buying any more Quest bars because she is eating them too often, despite the fact they only have 1g of sugar. It therefore seems reasonable to think that this person has a misguided fear of sugar.
No, it is completely unreasonable to think that. She clearly stated she tries to not keep foods in the house that she overeats...which is perfectly reasonable and taking personal responsibility. She mentioned sugar and ice cream. And then mentioned a low sugar item which she also avoids for the same reason...she eats too much of it. I don't know where you get the idea she is "afraid" of sugar. Perhaps you read a different post and replied to the wrong person?
No, I don't think so. It stands to reason. this person obviously is relating overeating to something else. Otherwise the nutrition information, including the sugar, wouldn't have been included.
If sugar routinely makes her overeat, she is relating sugar to overeating. She also relates Quest bars to overeating, and she has very clearly stated they do NOT have a lot of sugar. Thus, she she was pretty clear that ANY food she over eats she tried not to keep at home. She actually wrote these words..."i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. "
This seems pretty simple to me.
Sugar doesn't MAKE her overeat. She chooses to overeat things that have sugar in them. Not keeping them in the house is a good choice for her.
However, she needs to learn how not to overeat. The fact that she now has a food that doesn't have a lot of sugar that she's overeating says a lot, doesn't it? when does she get to the point where she's not keeping any food in the house?
How is keeping food you overeat out of the house not a method of learning not to overeat? You can't overeat it if it's not there, right?
You can if you get offered it places besides the house, so if that happens putting all your eggs in the avoidance basket might not be helpful.
But it also might, if your house was the place you were in the habit of eating it, of course.
Even if you are offered it outside your home and you do over-indulge, that doesn't mean you will have overeaten for more than that day. Most everyone has high calorie days. Keeping troublesome foods out of the house can be a good way to keep those days to a minimum.
Yes, it can be. (Which is, of course, what I said.)
But for me, the main place I used to eat sweets was work or restaurants. I keep more sweets at home on a regular basis now that I ever did before. When I ate sweets at home I'd impulse buy them on the way home, not keep them there (most sweets I like are perishable, other than ice cream).
So avoidance was never an option. I had to learn to say no or eat some in moderation. (With sweets at work I mostly say no.)
Cool. Different strokes for different folks! Not sure why everyone doesn't get that.0 -
Sorry, but this is bs. I gave up sugar (aside from fruit) 3 years ago and haven't looked back. Your taste buds do change, but it takes more than 10 days. Now candy makes me gag and most cakes and cookies are way too sweet for my taste. And I used to binge on these things... moderation never worked for me. But complete avoidance did/does.0
-
Sorry, but this is bs. I gave up sugar (aside from fruit) 3 years ago and haven't looked back. Your taste buds do change, but it takes more than 10 days. Now candy makes me gag and most cakes and cookies are way too sweet for my taste. And I used to binge on these things... moderation never worked for me. But complete avoidance did/does.
I think it's great that avoidance works for you, that you found something successful. What I was talking about in my original post, is not bs, either, it's just another method to try that works quite often.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Tinabob777 wrote: »Let me fix your thread title. . .
Matt Lauer proving why no sugar doesn't work for him
Sorry, it's my thread title. If you'd like to start your own thread, with your own title, feel free.0 -
I don't think there's any harm in doing a short term challenge deleting *added* sugar just to show that you can.
I'm eating watermelon as I type. With the right choices if you want sweet, you can get it without adding refined sugar, relying only on the naturally-occurring sugars.
Refined sugar is the same as natural sugars, it's just concentrated and so it is easier to over-eat it.
You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The other thing is that some foods are just too disappointing to eat in moderation.
I get 1550 calories a day, which drops every few weeks as I lose weight.
If you look at my diary for today, you'll see I got to eat a half a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, the other half for lunch, an apple a pear, 4 eggs, and some steak.
That leaves me with 187 calories left for the day.
That's about 3 Oreo cookies or maybe a couple of spoonfuls of ice cream. That's not a treat. That's a tease.0 -
Eating in moderation is somewhat of a skill IMO. Honestly though your mind is the deciding factor and willpower is one of the greatest things I have learned over the years. Figuring out what to eat is hard but figuring what NOT to eat is the biggest challenge.0
-
maillemaker wrote: »Is there any data that shows long-term weight loss results between moderation vs. abstinence?
Yes, there's data on that. Eating plans that incorporate more flexibility in food choice show more long-term success than eating plans based on eliminating foods.
But I'm not sure why you are asking since you're making it clear that you feel the moderation approach won't work for you.
I wasn't the one asking, but I'd like to see the data. Do you have a link?0 -
Learning to eat in moderation isn't easy, no one has said that it is. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean you just give up and go back to overeating. Or trying restriction, which has a very high rate of failure. One common misconception people have about moderation is that it means keeping foods in the home and portioning them out, where they are easily accessible. Often people will binge on foods if that is the case. the recommendation is to not keep the foods in the house, in those cases, and to go and buy a single serving at a time when one is wanted, to avoid overconsumption.
I've tried to abide by the rule if I want junk, I have to make it from scratch. So--scratch-made cake, scratch-made pie, scratch-made ice cream. The idea is I have to exert some effort to acquire the treat. If I don't want it enough to go to the trouble of making it, then I don't want it enough to justify eating it.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »The other thing is that some foods are just too disappointing to eat in moderation.
I get 1550 calories a day, which drops every few weeks as I lose weight.
If you look at my diary for today, you'll see I got to eat a half a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, the other half for lunch, an apple a pear, 4 eggs, and some steak.
That leaves me with 187 calories left for the day.
That's about 3 Oreo cookies or maybe a couple of spoonfuls of ice cream. That's not a treat. That's a tease.
3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Sometimes it helps to eat them away from any distractions, taking the time to really savor each one, rather than mindlessly eating them without enjoying.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »The other thing is that some foods are just too disappointing to eat in moderation.
I get 1550 calories a day, which drops every few weeks as I lose weight.
If you look at my diary for today, you'll see I got to eat a half a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, the other half for lunch, an apple a pear, 4 eggs, and some steak.
That leaves me with 187 calories left for the day.
That's about 3 Oreo cookies or maybe a couple of spoonfuls of ice cream. That's not a treat. That's a tease.
It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.0 -
That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.maillemaker wrote: »You can still have the ice cream, the cookie, the piece of cake. A serving of it. Not a binge sitting.
The problem is many people lack the self-control to do that, especially initially. As the saying goes:
In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »personally it is easier for me to give up sugar and use my calories for healthier options. i am not able to measure out 1/2 cup of ice cream and then leave it alone, if i eat sugar i crave more sugar. i have been eating Quest bars but i am starting to eat them too often so i don't plan on buying anymore for awhile. the last Quest bar that i ate had only 1 gram of sugar, plus 17g of fiber, and 21g of protein. i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. i also try to get the most nutrition from my calories. i think you have to do what works for you and listen to your body. i admire those who can practice moderation!
This post is an example of why this debate happens. This person associates sugar as bad for them, on account of cravings. So she must avoid things like ice cream. But then proceeded to say she isn't buying any more Quest bars because she is eating them too often, despite the fact they only have 1g of sugar. It therefore seems reasonable to think that this person has a misguided fear of sugar.
No, it is completely unreasonable to think that. She clearly stated she tries to not keep foods in the house that she overeats...which is perfectly reasonable and taking personal responsibility. She mentioned sugar and ice cream. And then mentioned a low sugar item which she also avoids for the same reason...she eats too much of it. I don't know where you get the idea she is "afraid" of sugar. Perhaps you read a different post and replied to the wrong person?
No, I don't think so. It stands to reason. this person obviously is relating overeating to something else. Otherwise the nutrition information, including the sugar, wouldn't have been included.
If sugar routinely makes her overeat, she is relating sugar to overeating. She also relates Quest bars to overeating, and she has very clearly stated they do NOT have a lot of sugar. Thus, she she was pretty clear that ANY food she over eats she tried not to keep at home. She actually wrote these words..."i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. "
This seems pretty simple to me.
Sugar doesn't MAKE her overeat. She chooses to overeat things that have sugar in them. Not keeping them in the house is a good choice for her.
However, she needs to learn how not to overeat. The fact that she now has a food that doesn't have a lot of sugar that she's overeating says a lot, doesn't it? when does she get to the point where she's not keeping any food in the house?
How is keeping food you overeat out of the house not a method of learning not to overeat? You can't overeat it if it's not there, right?
If your problem is so great that you can't keep any food in the house......? she's losing foods one at a time, what's next?
She mentioned TWO foods. Seriously, get control of yourself.
Hostile much?
My whole point was that her post BEGAN with associating sugar with cravings for more sugar. That is THEN followed by mentioning another item she has to restrict on account of overeating, that happens to be low in sugar. This might suggest, as you even pointed out, that she has an issue of overeating in general, which makes me question the purpose of the sugar reference in the first place. I think many believe they have a sugar "problem", when they really have an eating problem, and are focusing on sugar as a culprit that maybe isn't really the problem.0 -
I always get my workout and nutrition advice from Matt
Why is MFP so sugar obsessed ?
Weird thing to obsess on
The threads on panties bunching during squats are much more hilarious!
0 -
Tinabob777 wrote: »Let me fix your thread title. . .
Matt Lauer proving why no sugar doesn't work for him
Sorry, it's my thread title. If you'd like to start your own thread, with your own title, feel free.
Okay so he is proving that no-sugar doesn't work...for what?The Today Show did a whole bit on the 'No Sugar Challenge'. 10 days eating foods with NO added sugar. The theory being that if you can give it up for 10 days, you can give it up for life. Hm, no. Here's the problem: Joy had several 'replacement foods' she had invented to take the place of each person's favorite sugary treat. Matt Lauer was the honest person of the bunch and said flat out that these replacements didn't taste good!
If the replacements don't taste good, you won't eat them. You'll still want the old foods you 'gave up'. When you can't stand not eating them, and cave in, you'll binge.
If you learn to eat in moderation, and just have a small portion of those foods that have added sugar in them, you won't be eating sugar in excess anymore. The answer isn't to 'give up sugar'. Sugar is found naturally in many foods we eat every day. Do some research and learn how your body uses this simple carbohydrate and count it in your daily intake. Get your daily intake under control. Meet your needs for other foods, THEN have your small portion of treats. You can still have the ice cream, the cookie, the piece of cake. A serving of it. Not a binge sitting.
By learning about foods instead of fearing and avoiding them, you will help yourself become much more successful in the long run.
So, because Matt Lauer didn't like the foods, that made him the honest person? There were some foods in this series that he didn't like that the others did. It doesn't prove anything except that they all have different tastes. Is your point more that they shouldn't be trying to avoid sugar to begin with, or that since he doesn't like it, it must prove something? Because for many people, avoiding sugar does work, and using sugar substitutes might help them satisfy their sweet tooth but still stay within their calorie and macro/micro nutrient goals.0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Tinabob777 wrote: »Let me fix your thread title. . .
Matt Lauer proving why no sugar doesn't work for him
Sorry, it's my thread title. If you'd like to start your own thread, with your own title, feel free.
Okay so he is proving that no-sugar doesn't work...for what?The Today Show did a whole bit on the 'No Sugar Challenge'. 10 days eating foods with NO added sugar. The theory being that if you can give it up for 10 days, you can give it up for life. Hm, no. Here's the problem: Joy had several 'replacement foods' she had invented to take the place of each person's favorite sugary treat. Matt Lauer was the honest person of the bunch and said flat out that these replacements didn't taste good!
If the replacements don't taste good, you won't eat them. You'll still want the old foods you 'gave up'. When you can't stand not eating them, and cave in, you'll binge.
If you learn to eat in moderation, and just have a small portion of those foods that have added sugar in them, you won't be eating sugar in excess anymore. The answer isn't to 'give up sugar'. Sugar is found naturally in many foods we eat every day. Do some research and learn how your body uses this simple carbohydrate and count it in your daily intake. Get your daily intake under control. Meet your needs for other foods, THEN have your small portion of treats. You can still have the ice cream, the cookie, the piece of cake. A serving of it. Not a binge sitting.
By learning about foods instead of fearing and avoiding them, you will help yourself become much more successful in the long run.
So, because Matt Lauer didn't like the foods, that made him the honest person? There were some foods in this series that he didn't like that the others did. It doesn't prove anything except that they all have different tastes. Is your point more that they shouldn't be trying to avoid sugar to begin with, or that since he doesn't like it, it must prove something? Because for many people, avoiding sugar does work, and using sugar substitutes might help them satisfy their sweet tooth but still stay within their calorie and macro/micro nutrient goals.
I watched the entire segment - almost everyone disliked the foods, judging by their reactions, and even their responses. Matt was just the most brutally honest about them, as he usually is.
Yes, if you read my entire post, you shouldn't have to ask what my point is, as it was pretty clear.0 -
I am horrified honestly when my friends talk to me about how to resist/delete (ha) added sugars "like I have", and how it is such a great diet. I can't explain to them how much replacement foods typically don't work and how I just eat the things I like in reasonable portions (I legitimately hate chocolate and sweet items besides fruit in general so I guess I have a better time). It feels like I give them advice to just moderate intake and they blame weight gain not on lack of moderation but purely because they like "those evil sweets".
Sorry if this is a bit off topic but those convos get brought to mind whenever I see things on no sugar diets.0 -
You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
Again, I'd challenge you (someone making this statement) to prove how this would be done. The diet, I mean.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
This begs the question, if their health declined on account of moving more toward a diet they weren't adapted to, is it proper to assume a person from a long western lineage will be healthy moving toward a traditional Inuit diet?0 -
mantium999 wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
This begs the question, if their health declined on account of moving more toward a diet they weren't adapted to, is it proper to assume a person from a long western lineage will be healthy moving toward a traditional Inuit diet?
That we will never know. I have read (first hand) reports by people who lived with the inuit, for 6 months to two years at a time, over a hundred years ago and they reported improved health. It isn't anything that would pass people's scrutiny around here.
I do doubt that the Inuit are evolved that differently from my Northern European heritage though. 20 000 years or so isn't much, evolutionarily speaking.0 -
I'm not one to have a problem with sugar, but Matt Lauer didn't prove anything. All he did was offer his opinion that he did not like the foods he tasted. One man's opinion cannot (and ethically should not) be extrapolated into recommendations or findings about the general public, and trying to do so is a logical fallacy.0
-
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
Again, I'd challenge you (someone making this statement) to prove how this would be done. The diet, I mean.
You'd have to be a carnivore. 100%. It's done. I was in a forum discussion with someone who recently ate as (100%) carnivore (minus a few spics) for one year. He says he felt fine on it. I have had days where I ate all meat - I felt fine. I don't want to eat as a carnivore at this time though, so I don't. I would miss nuts.
I don't think living as a carnivore is any more radical than a vegan. Humans can handle it fine.0 -
Learning to eat in moderation isn't easy, no one has said that it is. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean you just give up and go back to overeating. Or trying restriction, which has a very high rate of failure. One common misconception people have about moderation is that it means keeping foods in the home and portioning them out, where they are easily accessible. Often people will binge on foods if that is the case. the recommendation is to not keep the foods in the house, in those cases, and to go and buy a single serving at a time when one is wanted, to avoid overconsumption.
I've tried to abide by the rule if I want junk, I have to make it from scratch. So--scratch-made cake, scratch-made pie, scratch-made ice cream. The idea is I have to exert some effort to acquire the treat. If I don't want it enough to go to the trouble of making it, then I don't want it enough to justify eating it.
I do something like this (I do have exceptions, like my friend's homemade baked goods that she always brings to our monthly book club, and I haven't implemented it with ice cream yet, in part because I find ice cream so easy to fit in, and I make exceptions for good chocolate as I couldn't make that anyway). This is because I like them more, but also because I think the main reason we eat more now is not that "processed" food is so much more irresistible or such nonsense, but because the acquisition costs are so incredibly low. So I try to increase the acquisition costs some.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »The other thing is that some foods are just too disappointing to eat in moderation.
I get 1550 calories a day, which drops every few weeks as I lose weight.
If you look at my diary for today, you'll see I got to eat a half a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, the other half for lunch, an apple a pear, 4 eggs, and some steak.
That leaves me with 187 calories left for the day.
That's about 3 Oreo cookies or maybe a couple of spoonfuls of ice cream. That's not a treat. That's a tease.
3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
I agree with this, and that seems about the right number of calories (I think 200-ish) for a treat (although I have more calories, even when trying to lose, which seems a little odd).
However, I can understand that some people would rather indulge in larger amounts less frequently. If that were me, I'd save them up and have something really special once a week.
But I'd also eat more food on my 1550 -- I think I ate more food when I was on 1250 than that sounds like.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
The Inuit did not live without carbs although they generally got the (admittedly comparatively few) carbs in their diets from animal sources. My understanding is that they also are adapted so that this low level of carbs did not put them in ketosis.0
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