Sugar free
Replies
-
Nope. It's calories in and calories out because science.0
-
lawanddean wrote: »Weight management is a simple game of math, these folks argue. To maintain your current weight, you need to consume the same number of calories your body burns each day. To lose a pound, you need to create a caloric deficit of approximately 3,500 calories. Whether you create that deficit by eating less fat, less carbohydrate, less protein or a little less of everything is immaterial.
It sounds sensible, but it’s actually not true. A calorie is not a calorie, in more than one sense. Carbohydrate, fat and protein calories are indeed equal by definition in terms of their energy content, but the body processes each in a distinct way, and these differences have real implications for weight management. In addition, food calories of all types may have very different effects on the body depending on when they are eaten and what they are eaten with.
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of measure, nothing more. That is like claiming an inch is not an inch.0 -
Yes a calorie is calorie, I didn't mean to say it wasn't, what I meant was bodies process calories differently depending on where the source has come from. So 500 calories of processed, high sugar food is not the same as 500 calories of heathy natural food as bodies process them differently. Lots of research confirms this. My calorie in take now is more, but nothing is processed where as before it was. So as a result I'm losing weight and feeling healthier.0
-
lawanddean wrote: »Yes a calorie is calorie, I didn't mean to say it wasn't, what I meant was bodies process calories differently depending on where the source has come from. So 500 calories of processed, high sugar food is not the same as 500 calories of heathy natural food as bodies process them differently. Lots of research confirms this. My calorie in take now is more, but nothing is processed where as before it was. So as a result I'm losing weight and feeling healthier.
Still nope.
It is well researched and proven that 3500 calories equals 1 lb. That would be like saying 12inches does not equal 1 foot because of the "quality" of the inch.0 -
Let's agree to disagree
I'm happy with how it's working for me if I start putting weight on from it then I'll know it's not working but for now it's working a treat and Ive never felt better 0 -
lawanddean wrote: »Yes a calorie is calorie, I didn't mean to say it wasn't, what I meant was bodies process calories differently depending on where the source has come from. So 500 calories of processed, high sugar food is not the same as 500 calories of heathy natural food as bodies process them differently. Lots of research confirms this. My calorie in take now is more, but nothing is processed where as before it was. So as a result I'm losing weight and feeling healthier.
Most people around here do not believe in this this. At all. I do believe that my body will handle jube-jubes differently than a steak or heavy cream, and that will affect if I gain weight, maintain or lose, if I am eating at TDEE, although I know that eating at a deficit is a large driver of weight loss.
You may get a lot of arguments based on your experiences....
0 -
lawanddean wrote: »Yes a calorie is calorie, I didn't mean to say it wasn't, what I meant was bodies process calories differently depending on where the source has come from. So 500 calories of processed, high sugar food is not the same as 500 calories of heathy natural food as bodies process them differently. Lots of research confirms this. My calorie in take now is more, but nothing is processed where as before it was. So as a result I'm losing weight and feeling healthier.
Most people around here do not believe in this this. At all. I do believe that my body will handle jube-jubes differently than a steak or heavy cream, and that will affect if I gain weight, maintain or lose, if I am eating at TDEE, although I know that eating at a deficit is a large driver of weight loss.
You may get a lot of arguments based on your experiences....
0 -
I do see why people wouldn't agree as I've been dieting since I was 18 and am now 35 and totally wouldn't have agreed with myself a few months ago. I feel like my eyes have been opened and wish I had realised this sooner. Documentaries like the sugar movie etc have shown me what I needed for me personally to lose weight. Thank you for your comment 0
-
lawanddean wrote: »Let's agree to disagree I'm happy with how it's working for me if I start putting weight on from it then I'll know it's not working but for now it's working a treat and Ive never felt better
You can "disagree" with science all you want, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.0 -
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
That is true, although science was wrong about saturated fats! A gold fish had a 5 second memory etc.....etc
0 -
lawanddean wrote: »just started to try and go sugar free, anyone tried it?
I've done low carb. Years ago (about a decade ago) I did a strict Atkins program and lost about 60 pounds in a few months. Gained about half that back within two years, plus a tad extra and hovered around that level for a number of years after that, while still ostensibly eating "low carb" (e.g., avoiding simple sugars, breads, etc).
Now I'm on the MFP train. I'm simply focusing on eating less and exercising more (IMAGINE THAT), and trying to choose foods that leave me satisfied without gorging me with calorie density (think fruits and veggies).
I've cautiously been allowing myself bread and sugary things now, as long as I carefully log it. Had some cake today at a party my daughter attended. Tasted good. I think I like what I'm doing now.
0 -
My body doesn't work like that, if I reduce calories to what this site tells me too I gain weight as my body stores fat as it's not getting enough calories
LOL Mmmmk.0 -
And also, your body processes all types of real sugars the same. In other words, your body processes white refined sugar the same way it processes the sugar in an apple or honey.0
-
Yes with the occasional treat so I dont go crazy. These 2 people are amazing. Not only have they lost weight, they have turned around their health from at risk (prediabetic) to no longer at risk. I follow this plus exercise:
http://www.nzsugarfree.co.nz/
and if you have time to watch this doco if you wish to:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/nigel-latta/nigel-latta-is-sugar-the-new-fat-/02-09-20140 -
This content has been removed.
-
lawanddean wrote: »My body doesn't work like that, if I reduce calories to what this site tells me too I gain weight as my body stores fat as it's not getting enough calories. I have chosen to increase calories but not eat processed food and cut out all added sugar and it's working really well. I used to think calories made you put on weight but I know for a fact, for me it's added sugar and processed food
Your body does work like that, just the same as every body out there. Nobody stores fat if they are not getting enough calories. If you are losing weight, it is only because you are in a calorie deficit. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake and defy science.
Here are three basic truths that everyone needs to know about weight management. Anything outside of this is personal preference only, or doctor mandated because you have a medical condition that requires a special diet.- If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
- If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
- If you eat about the same amount of calories you burn, you will maintain weight.
A calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Nutritionally foods are very different, but a person can lose weight on a nutritionally poor diet and gain weight on a nutritionally superb diet. In fact, if you eat too many calories, you can even gain weight on a....ahem.....sugar free aka no added sugar diet.
0 -
lawanddean wrote: »Weight management is a simple game of math, these folks argue. To maintain your current weight, you need to consume the same number of calories your body burns each day. To lose a pound, you need to create a caloric deficit of approximately 3,500 calories. Whether you create that deficit by eating less fat, less carbohydrate, less protein or a little less of everything is immaterial.
It sounds sensible, but it’s actually not true. A calorie is not a calorie, in more than one sense. Carbohydrate, fat and protein calories are indeed equal by definition in terms of their energy content, but the body processes each in a distinct way, and these differences have real implications for weight management. In addition, food calories of all types may have very different effects on the body depending on when they are eaten and what they are eaten with.
Oh my.....I used to think this way too. If I ate certain foods I would gain weight or lose weight, depending on how much I had either glorified or demonized that food. This is not healthy thinking.
I'm here to tell you it's 100% bunk. It really is.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
That is true, although science was wrong about saturated fats! A gold fish had a 5 second memory etc.....etc
Ancel Keys (a scientist, cough) fudged his numbers to fit his work.
So yeah, science.0 -
lawanddean wrote: »Let's agree to disagree I'm happy with how it's working for me if I start putting weight on from it then I'll know it's not working but for now it's working a treat and Ive never felt better
You can "disagree" with science all you want, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
This.
0 -
-
goldthistime wrote: »lawanddean wrote: »Well progres so far I've limited sugar, I only have it from fruit and I've limited that, I'm eating much more but more healthy foods and I've lost 7 pounds in a week and feel amazing. I'm not touching process foods again, I wish I had tried this years ago
I LOVE it! When you said "sugar free", I assumed that you did not mean you would stop eating fruit or drinking milk or consuming ANY possible source of sugar because that would be a statistically unusual situation and if that really WERE your intent, I would have expected you to expound upon all the strict rules you would have to follow. I don't know why people here take everyone so literally when, to me, your intent was clear. But I LOVE that you didn't engage, you just came back and reported SUCCESS! WTG!
Most people asked, and no one jumped on her. I don't know why people are so quick to see negativity when it does not exist, just from questions or the like.
Here's my response from above:I gave up added sugar for a period of time for my own reasons.
You have to know what your reasons are and specifically what you are trying to do (for example I think it is not a good idea to give up some foods with sugar, like vegetables and fruits and dairy -- I've generally increased my consumption of those). I also think unless you have a specific reason for cutting out added sugar for a time or in general and simply think you consume too much of it that it's often best to start by just cutting down. Why make it all or nothing?
But if you have specific questions about what I did I'm open to them. On the whole it wasn't much more than just not eating them and I didn't really feel any different. (I mostly eat whole foods and don't put sugar in beverages so it meant cutting out sweets--my consumption from processed things is pretty low already.)
I will say that I'm actually more concerned by OP's subsequent post than the original question as I think cutting down sugar to the extent that you restrict/cut fruits and even vegetables, without some reason for that (like I get why low carbers cut fruit, although I wouldn't, and I personally see zero good reason to cut vegetables). But her business. I think my answer is just as applicable, although she apparently wasn't really interested in anyone else's experiences (which is totally cool, of course).
0 -
lawanddean wrote: »Yes a calorie is calorie, I didn't mean to say it wasn't, what I meant was bodies process calories differently depending on where the source has come from. So 500 calories of processed, high sugar food is not the same as 500 calories of heathy natural food as bodies process them differently. Lots of research confirms this. My calorie in take now is more, but nothing is processed where as before it was. So as a result I'm losing weight and feeling healthier.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I take it you mean you are looking to reduce your sugar - good for you. great thing to cut back on to reduce the calories.
Going "sugar free" does not = "reducing sugar."
It does if you don't read everything so literally!
The other day I was out of breath (but guess what? I could still breath).
Out of breath is an expression in a way sugar free is not.
So not a good analogy.
I would also disagree that reducing sugar from veg is a good thing.
I think in this day an age of dieting 'most people' understand sugar free diets as an expression meaning 'ones that reduce added sugar'.
Nope, usually they mean cut out ALL added sugar (which you can see from my response is what I assumed she meant) and far too often they also include concerns/worries about sugar from fruit and vegetables. That's common enough on MFP that I think it needs to be addressed and OP here has made it clear that she did indeed include cutting down sugar from even vegetables (which is not healthy IMO) as well as cutting (not reducing) added sugar (which IMO is fine, whatever).
Anyway, she should do what she likes, but I think your insistence that "sugar free" tends to mean "cutting down added sugar" only is simply wrong in most cases.And regards reducing sugar from fruit and veg - I think you can only really make a judgement on that when you know what the starting point is (for example - If the ops is getting 80% of cals from fruit and veg, there maybe room for reduction).
I'm willing to bet this is not the case for most trying to lose weight, and also you tossed fruit back in (and I'm skeptical it's that significant part of the diet for almost everyone concerned about going sugar free), whereas I focused on vegetables. OP specifically claimed to be reducing her vegetable consumption because of sugar, so she's NOT just saying "I want to eat fewer high cal, low nutrient foods," contrary to your effort to re-interpret the posts.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
It's delicious. They are also pretty low calorie. I put them in the freezer cause then they get really firm. Scrumdiddlyumptious! How much sugar is in it? Don't know, don't care. I don't track it. I do track that there is salted caramel on top.
Cheesecake bar? Never heard of one.....
I'm in!
0 -
lawanddean wrote: »Let's agree to disagree I'm happy with how it's working for me if I start putting weight on from it then I'll know it's not working but for now it's working a treat and Ive never felt better
You can't really agree to disagree in an argument where you claim the sky is brown.0 -
I am so glad that science works for me. In fact when I began to measure correctly, I found that, Calories in-calories out= weight change, to be very accurate. If science didn't work for me, I would worry about floating away instead of my feet staying on the ground. Weight loss would be a mystery. I like reading mysteries; living them, not so much.0
-
I go sugar free now in my tea/coffee... no honey/sugar dates on my oats and watch out for sugar in yogurt, it has really reduced my cravings for sweet treats which would derail me, I can taste the sweetness of sweet potatoes now. And bitter chocolate has become my treat! Its working! and saving my teeth! Sugar has hormonal effects on our bodies any one who say all calories are the same are WRONG in terms our nutritional support.
0 -
Treasureslide wrote: »I go sugar free now in my tea/coffee... no honey/sugar dates on my oats and watch out for sugar in yogurt, it has really reduced my cravings for sweet treats which would derail me, I can taste the sweetness of sweet potatoes now. And bitter chocolate has become my treat! Its working! and saving my teeth! Sugar has hormonal effects on our bodies any one who say all calories are the same are WRONG in terms our nutritional support.
Nope. Calories and nutrition are NOT the same thing. Calories are for weight loss. You can literally eat 1200 calories of pure white sugar and lose weight. That would be a bad idea because you wouldn't be getting the right nutrition. A calorie is a calorie for weight loss. What goes along with that calorie is what matters for overall health. Like... not getting scurvy. Which funnily enough brings us back onto sugar and why cutting out fruit isn't a very good idea. The best sources of vitamin C (prevents scurvy) are fruits.
Personally, I put my mental health on the same level as my physical health. Cookies make me happy. So I will eat one, every now and again, when it fits my calories.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
- 232.6K 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