Best breakfast. protein v fat v carbs
Options
Replies
-
bobby19666 wrote: »my point is a reduction to 50g a day is better than most calories coming from sugar which Is empty calories
Who said MOST calories should come from sugar. Please cite, or else it will seem that you are misrepresenting what people have said.
IF you used to eat mostly sugar, presumably you knew better, and that was on you.
I used to eat a stupid amount of Indian food, delivered to my house. Did I get fat because this was processed (I sometimes had the leftovers as breakfast too)? Or because it had lots and lots of calories (as as many from fat as carbs, I expect), I ate too much of it at a time, and I did not burn so many calories?
Clearly, the calories.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »OP is trolling.
OP's original question was about high fat vs. cereal and then about macros. People said eat the macros that work for you, doesn't matter. OP fear-mongered about fruit because of dread sugar Roberts (the full latin name). People said don't worry about getting sugar in moderation unless you have some health issue. OP then starting going on about insulin storing fat in a deficit and other distortions and half-understood factoids and then when people pointed out the truth insisted he was talking about eating multiple cakes at breakfast or some ridiculousness. And now we are on to eating loads of calories in fried foods not causing obesity, but sugary cereal.
Whatever.
I don't even like cold cereal (oatmeal is good, though), and even I know you can get non sugary cereal if you want to.
Or don't eat cereal. I don't (unless you count the occasional oatmeal). Who cares? Why ask about breakfast if you already know what you want to eat?
Yup. You gave a succinct summary of the thread too. There never was any question.
There isn't any question.
Some people do better with a carb and protein breakfast. Some people do better with higher fat and protein. Some people do better with just carbs and a little bit of fat.
There is no one "better". Different people find different macro balances satiating.
0 -
I discovered refrigerator oatmeal because of MFP. I now consider my ideal breakfast (for tastiness, satiation, and macro balance), to be oatmeal (cereal) soaked in yogurt overnight (heavy on the yogurt) with a tablespoon of sunflower seeds and frozen blueberries or strawberries in the bottom.
I love that too!0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
0 -
Ok post is out of hand. Final summary ppl choose different weight loss methods. Be it juice diets or whatever. To me cutting sugar makes common sense and having slow realising energy as I'm not a body builder but want to tone down. I've read up on insulin the need to increase fibre etc. I take it porridge or eggs is preferred choice. I eat fruit but don't add sugar to tea, drink green now. Basically comes down to the individual0
-
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Finally someone agrees with diabetes link. Only since sugar became cheap and plentiful in all foods. Fruits are good but wasn't always plentiful which is why many were seasonal and treats0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Just no.0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Why don't traditional cultures that get up to 90% of their diet from carbs(some high GI) get diabetes or other problems? And glucose is REQUIRED to live, the easiest and least stressful way to get it...carbs0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Why don't traditional cultures that get up to 90% of their diet from carbs(some high GI) get diabetes or other problems? And glucose is REQUIRED to live, the easiest and least stressful way to get it...carbs
I think peoples ethnicity may be important in nutrition as people evolved in a geographic area with a distinct combination of scarce and plentiful foods. It is undeniable that there is wide variation in different peoples' response to different diet compositions.
Glucose can be made by the body if not eaten. Do you have any idea where you read that it is 'stressful' to make? The body produces many needed substances.0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Why don't traditional cultures that get up to 90% of their diet from carbs(some high GI) get diabetes or other problems? And glucose is REQUIRED to live, the easiest and least stressful way to get it...carbs
I think peoples ethnicity may be important in nutrition as people evolved in a geographic area with a distinct combination of scarce and plentiful foods. It is undeniable that there is wide variation in different peoples' response to different diet compositions.
Glucose can be made by the body if not eaten. Do you have any idea where you read that it is 'stressful' to make? The body produces many needed substances.
So now ethnicity determines your nutritional requirements? No.0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Why don't traditional cultures that get up to 90% of their diet from carbs(some high GI) get diabetes or other problems? And glucose is REQUIRED to live, the easiest and least stressful way to get it...carbs
I think peoples ethnicity may be important in nutrition as people evolved in a geographic area with a distinct combination of scarce and plentiful foods. It is undeniable that there is wide variation in different peoples' response to different diet compositions.
Glucose can be made by the body if not eaten. Do you have any idea where you read that it is 'stressful' to make? The body produces many needed substances.
No. It's not evolution, it's adaptation. If you were to move to such an area, you'd adapt after an adjustment period too.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Why don't traditional cultures that get up to 90% of their diet from carbs(some high GI) get diabetes or other problems? And glucose is REQUIRED to live, the easiest and least stressful way to get it...carbs
I think peoples ethnicity may be important in nutrition as people evolved in a geographic area with a distinct combination of scarce and plentiful foods. It is undeniable that there is wide variation in different peoples' response to different diet compositions.
Glucose can be made by the body if not eaten. Do you have any idea where you read that it is 'stressful' to make? The body produces many needed substances.
No. It's not evolution, it's adaptation. If you were to move to such an area, you'd adapt after an adjustment period too.
Just had a nice read on what an 'adaption' is in the evolutionary context. I don't think it means what you said.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_06
From the above the word 'adaption' is the name of a characteristic that evolved and is heritable, functional and increases the fitness of the creature to its environment. The article sited seems to say an adaption is not a short term 'one lifetime' process.
If you were writing using generic words rather than the scientific definition, never mind!
0 -
Putting the rude tone of this post aside...mantium999 wrote: »bobby19666 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Just rather focus now than when it'd too late. Also want bodmantium999 wrote: »Perhaps I missed it, do you have a medical reason to be concerned about sugars? If not, spend more time understanding how to consistently maintain a caloric deficit. Once you master the basic principal that governs all weight loss, feel free to "fine tune" your approach with more complicated matters. If you can't do the basics, why muck it up with other stuff? If you do have a medical reason to worry about your sugar intake, make that info known, as there are many here with loads of experience dealing with insulin issues.
No medical reason. Have a deficit everyday just focusing before its too late. Still eat fruit for snacks. Just think if I keep insulin low il burn more fat
Nope. If you do not have a medical condition, there is no reason to be concerned about sugar. Calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. You are not going to magically lose more weight if you keep sugar low.
Calorie deficit is for weight loss, the chemical composition of your chosen foods is for your health. Diseases caused by diet can take 5-50 years to develop. Today and tomorrow you will be fine eating virtually anything, but if you prefer not to wake up sick and miserable in 15 years then thinking about what you eat is important.
Please stop telling people they don't need to care about their nutrition unless they have a documented medical reason. Fitness includes weight and health, not weight alone.
I see nothing in that post telling OP not to worry about health or nutrition. Not focusing on reducing sugar does NOT equal not focusing on health. Sugar is not inherently bad for a healthy individual, stop implying that it will cause someone to wake up "sick and miserable" in 15 years. Unsubstantiated fear mongering is pathetic.
OP, without a medical reason, focusing on reducing sugar will not help you lose anymore weight or fat than you will by reducing calories. I suggest you master your calorie targets first, nail the basics, and then if you want feel free to adjust other variable such as sugar and see how you feel. If you change too many things at once, there is no way for you to truly isolate how something makes you feel.
Op is eating at a deficit already, so according to you it means that we are permitted to talk about the actual composition of his diet now, right?
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are shorter term fuel than fats or proteins. When the short term fuel is used up or stored, then you get hungry again. I don't know about you, but I eat less when my stomach is not growling. This conversation is about weight loss AND food composition. It is really OK to try and understand chemical processing of food beyond the calorie level of understanding.
Op stated that they believed keeping sugar low would aid in fat loss and that was their reason for restricting them. Correcting that misinformation is NOT saying don't pay attention to nutrition. By the way, I'm assuming you werei referring to diabetes as the medical condition that can develop later on, which is also false. High sugar intake does not cause diabetes.
And here I was thinking the post was cleaned up and polite.
No one will officially say that high levels of sugar (or any carb for that matter) intake "causes" diabetes but they will say that high intake increases your risk of developing diabetes - officially. One person out of 10 now have diabetes and you have to understand that many more are developing it right now. This is a level never seen in history.
There are more conditions than diabetes that are tightly affiliated with high carb diets and that are also alleviated or solved by lowering carbohydrate intake. Even for a layman, it is not appropriate to minimize anyone's efforts to decrease carbohydrate intake. The minimum carbohydrate intake required to sustain human life is zero. Fats and proteins are required to live.
Who knows, maybe less calories of sugar/carbs mean more calories of foods higher in micronutrients and less hunger?
My point is, why would anyone go out and encourage carb/sugar calories over fat or protein calories?
Why don't traditional cultures that get up to 90% of their diet from carbs(some high GI) get diabetes or other problems? And glucose is REQUIRED to live, the easiest and least stressful way to get it...carbs
I think peoples ethnicity may be important in nutrition as people evolved in a geographic area with a distinct combination of scarce and plentiful foods. It is undeniable that there is wide variation in different peoples' response to different diet compositions.
Glucose can be made by the body if not eaten. Do you have any idea where you read that it is 'stressful' to make? The body produces many needed substances.
So now ethnicity determines your nutritional requirements? No.
It does seem that the Inuit do worse on high carb diets than most other ethnic groups, for one example.
Personally, I don't tend to assume everyone reading is Inuit when I post or tailor my advice as if that's so -- and even the Inuit traditionally got enough carbs for their own bodies to stay out of keto -- but to each their own.
(Lactose tolerance is something that tends to vary on average by ancestral geographical origin too, probably much more so.)
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing low carb as a strategy for controlling calories or because it's how you like to eat (although I personally would be concerned that doing it longterm is stressful for the body and that you are likely to be low in micronutrients depending on how strictly you tend to cut carbs, specifically veggies). I'm not suggesting that my concern here is any more valid that someone else's concern about sat fat or sugar or sodium, which I tend not to worry about in moderate amounts.
What I find somewhat irritating is when people pretend like this anti-carb fear is justified by the nutrition experts when in fact the more credible sources (the same ones that tend to warn against too much added sugar and highly processed carbs and fried foods and the rest) generally promote eating a good many less processed carbs, especially from veggies and fruits and beans, usually in an even higher percentage than I like to eat (I do 40%). And that's consistent with the many traditional healthy diets that have carbs as staple foods, although IMO macro mix doesn't matter much, as traditional diets range widely depending on the available foods.
Humans appear to be able to adjust easily to different macro mixes and different foods sources on the whole, also. (There's a fun discussion of this in Matt Fitzgerald's Diet Cults.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions