Replacing fat with sugar, good or bad idea?
germanleprachaun
Posts: 4 Member
So my daily intake for fat is 80g and my sugar is around there too. I've been eating about 160g of protein per day and I'm trying to cut back on my fat intake (chicken dipping sauces / peanut butter) and replacing them with high sugar low fat substitutes (BBQ sauce / Chobani yogurt)
I've found its much easier to cut back on fat this way but will my nearly doubled sugar intake (was hardly consuming 50g a day before) screw me over in any negative way?
I've found its much easier to cut back on fat this way but will my nearly doubled sugar intake (was hardly consuming 50g a day before) screw me over in any negative way?
0
Replies
-
I'm not really understanding why you are cutting back on fats?0
-
Why are you cutting fat?
Calories are what matter, but cutting fat for sugar could make your diet less filling and may not be any healthier, depending on what the substitutions are.
Check this out: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/0 -
Fat is an important nutrient. Why would you want to cut it out?0
-
You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.0
-
No need to cut it out. Aim for .4g per pound of body weight per day to maintain good health. More than that is ok, but not really necessary.0
-
Um...no. You should try to hit your fat target actually. Dietary fat is necessary.0
-
I misworded my post, instead of cutting out all fat I'm actually just trying to cut back on it, the reason being I've been going over on fat on occasion. The reason I'm going over is because I used to smother my chicken in honey mustard, or eat huge peanut butter sandwiches each day.0
-
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Nope! It will only get "converted" to fat if you are Ina calorie surplus. If you are Ina. Calorie deficit, you will lose weight, regardless of how much sugar you have.0 -
germanleprachaun wrote: »I misworded my post, instead of cutting out all fat I'm actually just trying to cut back on it, the reason being I've been going over on fat on occasion. The reason I'm going over is because I used to smother my chicken in honey mustard, or eat huge peanut butter sandwiches each day.
Then stop doing that, at least if it is causing you to go over your daily calorie allowance. You shouldn't swap fat for sugar though. If anything, track carbs, fat, protein, and fiber.0 -
germanleprachaun wrote: »I misworded my post, instead of cutting out all fat I'm actually just trying to cut back on it, the reason being I've been going over on fat on occasion. The reason I'm going over is because I used to smother my chicken in honey mustard, or eat huge peanut butter sandwiches each day.
Are you weight training? If so, then yeah, most people do better eating around 20%-25% of their calories from fat and adding more carbs instead.
If you're not weight training, then it doesn't really matter too much.0 -
I would advise against doing a substantial increase in sugar. Sugar is fine in moderation, but it sounds like you'd be getting a lot of additional added sugar, which would potentially put you over the recommended maximum amount.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I would advise against doing a substantial increase in sugar. Sugar is fine in moderation, but it sounds like you'd be getting a lot of additional added sugar, which would potentially put you over the recommended maximum amount.
If he's restricting calories and exercising and not insulin resistant and doesn't have any other medical issues requiring restriction of carbs, then there's no maximum. Carbs are good fuel.0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »germanleprachaun wrote: »I misworded my post, instead of cutting out all fat I'm actually just trying to cut back on it, the reason being I've been going over on fat on occasion. The reason I'm going over is because I used to smother my chicken in honey mustard, or eat huge peanut butter sandwiches each day.
Are you weight training? If so, then yeah, most people do better eating around 20%-25% of their calories from fat and adding more carbs instead.
If you're not weight training, then it doesn't really matter too much.
Thank you for the response this was the info I was looking for. Yes I am weight training and yes by changing from high fat to high sugar substitutes I went from 30% of calories from fat to about 25%, so this all sounds good for me. Thanks again.
0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Nope! It will only get "converted" to fat if you are Ina calorie surplus. If you are Ina. Calorie deficit, you will lose weight, regardless of how much sugar you have.
You could solely consume fat and still loose weight if you were in calorie deficit. I didn't think i had to explain the concept of weight lose too, I thought that was fairly obvious. Blatantly not ha0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit loss. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
0 -
OK. I'm increasing fats to eat less sugar, good luck.0
-
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Still wrong.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Still wrong.
Would you like to correct me then or are you just going to sit on your high horse? I'm here to learn like everyone else.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Not quite. With out a calorie surplus the net result will not be weight gain.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Still wrong.
Would you like to correct me then or are you just going to sit on your high horse? I'm here to learn like everyone else.
The answer is in this thread already.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Still wrong.
Would you like to correct me then or are you just going to sit on your high horse? I'm here to learn like everyone else.
The answer is in this thread already.
Are you referring to your own post? Because that doesn't technically answer OP, you've just showed the importance of fats. As you put it "calories are what matter", well for weight loss but he didn't state that it was for weight loss anywhere in his post, in terms of health sugar can have the same artery clogging effects. Hence why I said you a best to keep within both recommended intakes.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Still wrong.
Would you like to correct me then or are you just going to sit on your high horse? I'm here to learn like everyone else.
You have to think of weight loss in terms of the big picture. Your body, as a system, obeys the laws of thermodynamics. There may be a lot of chemical reactions that take place in the body that store fat, but there are others that remove fat for energy. But the net result of weight loss or weight gain depends entirely on how much energy you put into your body and how much goes out of your body. In other words, energy is conserved, so the addition of all those chemical processes will result in a net loss or a net gain depending on how much you eat and how much you burn.0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
Not true at all.
You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain fat.
As above, I didn't think I had to explain the concept of weight loss, usually that is a given. Surplus gain, deficit lose. So technically I haven't given any incorrect information, even if you consider "not true at all"
Except that is NOT what you said. You said that excess sugar (not calories) will get converted to fat, which is not true. Just in case you forgot what you said:JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »You would be better trying to reduce both rather than one or the other, sugar is technically a form of carb but excess sugar in the body is converted to fat. So if you have a massive surplus of sugar its counter productive to weight loss. Try keeping within both recommended intakes.
You clearly say excess sugar is counter productive to weight loss, which is not true.
Okay my apologies, if the excess sugar in your system is not used as energy shortly after consumption a process called lipogenesis occurs, in which sugar is converted into body fat. Which is in fact counter productive to weight loss as fat is being generated within your body that cannot be measured or logged in MFP. Soo, long story short a massive excess of sugar IS counter productive to weight loss.
Still wrong.
Would you like to correct me then or are you just going to sit on your high horse? I'm here to learn like everyone else.
You have to think of weight loss in terms of the big picture. Your body, as a system, obeys the laws of thermodynamics. There may be a lot of chemical reactions that take place in the body that store fat, but there are others that remove fat for energy. But the net result of weight loss or weight gain depends entirely on how much energy you put into your body and how much goes out of your body. In other words, energy is conserved, so the addition of all those chemical processes will result in a net loss or a net gain depending on how much you eat and how much you burn.
Finally someone willing to try provide an answer rather than dispute ha. Yeah I understand the concept, I've been in maintenance for years, as well as the odd bulk and cut so I completely get where you are coming from in terms of energy in and out. This however doesn't not answer the OP original question will excess sugars screw me over in a negative way, apparently everything we've ever been told about sugar is false and as long as you are in a calorie deficit everything will be okay.0 -
Replacing fat with sugar is a bad idea. Your body needs fat, it doesn't need extra sugar. Fat helps you to feel full and satisfied.0
-
Oh for heaven's sake stop with the broscience. Studies have shown time and time again that weight loss and weight gain is all calories in vs. calories out. Yes carbohydrates, protein, and fat play different roles in the body and properly manipulating them can change your overall body composition.
BUT it is completely unnecessary for the average person. Unless you're an athlete or a physique competitor trying to get really lean or build serious muscle, changing your split of protein/carbs/fats isn't going to make much of a difference.0 -
germanleprachaun wrote: »So my daily intake for fat is 80g and my sugar is around there too. I've been eating about 160g of protein per day and I'm trying to cut back on my fat intake (chicken dipping sauces / peanut butter) and replacing them with high sugar low fat substitutes (BBQ sauce / Chobani yogurt)
I've found its much easier to cut back on fat this way but will my nearly doubled sugar intake (was hardly consuming 50g a day before) screw me over in any negative way?
mmmm, triglycerides. Don't tell your liver.
0 -
MichelleLei1 wrote: »Oh for heaven's sake stop with the broscience. Studies have shown time and time again that weight loss and weight gain is all calories in vs. calories out.
You'll be posting 5 references to substantiate this claim then ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions