To everyone struggling to lose weight
Replies
-
blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Proponents of the low carb diet say they are less hungry and therefore eat less calories.
In general, the studies I've seen that try to quantify what influences satiety show carbs have very little, if any, direct effect. The most important factors:
Protein strongly increases satiety
Fiber strongly increases satiety
Calorie density strongly decreases satiety
Fat somewhat decreases satiety
Carbs, of course, have an effect in that they can quickly raise calorie density - but so can fats. It's usually the combination of sugars and fats that are the most calorie dense foods.
I find many high-carb foods like pastas to be extremely filling.
There's one study floating around somewhere that found the most satiating food to be the humble potato.
It's certainly true for me. I also find a big bowl of popcorn (air-popped and lightly misted with butter spray) to be very, very filling.
That's because they're both starches.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
That would explain alot
0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
That would explain alot
0 -
The basic reason why there's obesity is because of people who succeed at over consumption of calories. Anyone can STOP that IF they really want to. Of course there are people with health issues, but I'm referring to general population. People KNOW when they are fat and overweight. They basically just choose not to do anything about it but compound the issue. And that's more a mental approach then whatever Lustig believes about the food industry and sugar.Its basically getting to the heart of why its so difficult for people to eat less and exercise more.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
Hopefully the dietitian meant that about 130g of glucose is required for brain function. That can be met by eating carbohydrates or protein.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
Hopefully the dietitian meant that about 130g of glucose is required for brain function. That can be met by eating carbohydrates or protein.
True.
Serious question though that I thought of because of this now.
Since gluconeogenesis happens with some of the protein you eat to get the minimum absolutely required glucose, and you can't eat too much protein either on keto, wouldn't that inhibit protein synthesis for muscle building/repair a bit since part of the ingested protein gets used for glucose generation, reducing your net protein intake?0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
Hopefully the dietitian meant that about 130g of glucose is required for brain function. That can be met by eating carbohydrates or protein.
She didn't mean "simple sugars" but she also didn't mention, this correlation either; so thank you because she'll be coming by again, next month & I'll certainly ask. I had started a thread before I went to see her, about ideas for questions; that I should ask.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10294944/meeting-with-a-dietitian#latest0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Since gluconeogenesis happens with some of the protein you eat to get the minimum absolutely required glucose, and you can't eat too much protein either on keto, wouldn't that inhibit protein synthesis for muscle building/repair a bit since part of the ingested protein gets used for glucose generation, reducing your net protein intake?
That would make sense to me, and would also explain why you need to up your carbs when trying to add LBM: reserving the protein to build/repair muscle instead of having some diverted for energy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions