Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Options
Replies
-
seekingdaintiness wrote: »currently trying "the junkfood diet" out of boredom with lowcarb and just to piss off all the low carbers and "clean eaters". No change in weight loss or fat loss. Sorry, it's just calories.
Wasn't the discussion about how for some, eating high carb and sugars make it harder to keep calorie consumption in check? I think most would agree that only eating 800 calories of honey per day would cause you to lose weight.
0 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
You can stand behind what you said, but it's obesity that contributes to the risk of T2D. It's not only sugar that makes people obese. Your statement is hypothetical.
Do you think sugar can cause people to be more prone to overeat?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
For me personally, I can tell you that sugar makes me high. Literally. I get a hard buzz when I eat sugar. It makes me so very very very happy while I am eating it. I usually feel terrible later, but at the time of consumption, I like it more than being drunk from alcohol or other options. Since I was a young child, eating candy/chocolate was a primary objective. Back then I didn't know anything about calories, carbs, or weight gain. I was a kid, and I just wanted it. I would eat an entire pillowcase of Halloween candy as fast as I could, only stopping if I felt I was going to vomit.
I had no other compulsive behaviors. Gambling? Alcohol? Drugs? Other foods? Nothing. Just the sugar. To a degree, high carb foods have a similar but lesser effect on me (bagels, pizza, italian bread), but nothing like sugar.
I used to race BMX as a kid, and they sew the phrase "Snicker Powered" on my jersey, because I would eat a Snickers bar before each race, get a huge rush of pleasure and energy, and then go out and crush the competition.
I tried about 10 different diets between the ages of 25 and 40, everything from Atkins, to Body for Life, to calorie counting. None of them worked, even though I badly wanted them too. Until one day, at age 36, I tried Paleo. In Paleo, I was forced to cut added sugar out, and even encouraged to minimize sweet fruits to small amounts.
I spent two weeks in terrible withdrawal. Really bad headaches, and I felt sick. I told my wife I actually thought there was something seriously wrong with me and I should see a doctor, because I felt like I was dying. But I had read about the "carb flu", and decided to push through it. At the end of week 2, all of my cravings fell away. And over the next 18 months I lost 50 pounds and reached my goal weight.
I found that if I had any added sugar, even 18 months later, it triggered me to becoming a T-Rex, craving more cookies/donuts/cake/frosting. Heck, I could eat the frosting off of 10 cupcakes and leave the cake behind. So like a guy with an alcohol problem (I have friends who are AA), I have to try to avoid sugar entirely, and even stay out of sugar situations as I lose my ability to make decisions when I get around it too much.
So yes, I personally think that sugar is the cause, at least for me. I have no problem admitting that it's not sugar (which just like nicotine or gambling in itself can be considered a harmless thing) but perhaps my biological make-up, but that was my original point. How it affects some people is different.
This is one of the best posts in the whole thread. Thank you for taking the time to type it out.
I do believe that some are more sensitive to sugar than others and I'm not going to tell people who say so that they are wrong and don't need to eliminate sugar from their diets.1 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »currently trying "the junkfood diet" out of boredom with lowcarb and just to piss off all the low carbers and "clean eaters". No change in weight loss or fat loss. Sorry, it's just calories.
Wasn't the discussion about how for some, eating high carb and sugars make it harder to keep calorie consumption in check? I think most would agree that only eating 800 calories of honey per day would cause you to lose weight.
Most, but plenty actually think you'd stay your weight or even gain because sugar.
We've seen some *kitten* here.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sure, just like the tobacco industry managed to keep the part about it causing cancer under wraps.Oh wait.
Heh, I know this was a jest, but I think this is why many people trust their own experiences and perceptions above what they hear reported. We know in America that the sugar/tobacco/energy industries can change the science any time they want to, since they run the show.
There isn't a lot of motivation to call out sugar and denounce it (for the most part everyone likes the way it tastes, why would we?). So when I see studies that say sugar is bad, I tend to think they are more neutral than the ones that say wine/chocolate/caffeine/sugar is good for you!
2 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
You can stand behind what you said, but it's obesity that contributes to the risk of T2D. It's not only sugar that makes people obese. Your statement is hypothetical.
Do you think sugar can cause people to be more prone to overeat?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
For me personally, I can tell you that sugar makes me high. Literally. I get a hard buzz when I eat sugar. It makes me so very very very happy while I am eating it. I usually feel terrible later, but at the time of consumption, I like it more than being drunk from alcohol or other options. Since I was a young child, eating candy/chocolate was a primary objective. Back then I didn't know anything about calories, carbs, or weight gain. I was a kid, and I just wanted it. I would eat an entire pillowcase of Halloween candy as fast as I could, only stopping if I felt I was going to vomit.
I had no other compulsive behaviors. Gambling? Alcohol? Drugs? Other foods? Nothing. Just the sugar. To a degree, high carb foods have a similar but lesser effect on me (bagels, pizza, italian bread), but nothing like sugar.
I used to race BMX as a kid, and they sew the phrase "Snicker Powered" on my jersey, because I would eat a Snickers bar before each race, get a huge rush of pleasure and energy, and then go out and crush the competition.
I tried about 10 different diets between the ages of 25 and 40, everything from Atkins, to Body for Life, to calorie counting. None of them worked, even though I badly wanted them too. Until one day, at age 36, I tried Paleo. In Paleo, I was forced to cut added sugar out, and even encouraged to minimize sweet fruits to small amounts.
I spent two weeks in terrible withdrawal. Really bad headaches, and I felt sick. I told my wife I actually thought there was something seriously wrong with me and I should see a doctor, because I felt like I was dying. But I had read about the "carb flu", and decided to push through it. At the end of week 2, all of my cravings fell away. And over the next 18 months I lost 50 pounds and reached my goal weight.
I found that if I had any added sugar, even 18 months later, it triggered me to becoming a T-Rex, craving more cookies/donuts/cake/frosting. Heck, I could eat the frosting off of 10 cupcakes and leave the cake behind. So like a guy with an alcohol problem (I have friends who are AA), I have to try to avoid sugar entirely, and even stay out of sugar situations as I lose my ability to make decisions when I get around it too much.
So yes, I personally think that sugar is the cause, at least for me. I have no problem admitting that it's not sugar (which just like nicotine or gambling in itself can be considered a harmless thing) but perhaps my biological make-up, but that was my original point. How it affects some people is different.
Sounds like maybe your real problem is with self control in general.
I'm going to hope this wasn't meant to be as much of an insult as it came across as.
Of course, I have thought about that many times. But then I look at all of my life habits. As a father, with gambling, drinking, exercise, diet (outside of sugar), with my work ethic, my finances. Discipline and self control in abundance, everywhere. So I see it as an exception, and not that I have no self control "in general". I exhibit more self control in most things than the average person.
Now, you may have meant "Sounds like maybe your real problem is with self control when it comes to sugar", then I would say I agree! But if you were just trolling, well, whatever.
If someone has a dependence problem, we tend to label it as a disease. Alcohol, drugs, etc. But if it's sugar, well then it's just a weak mind (the way we used to feel about alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling).4 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.
Well, a lot I have read talks about the effects of insulin on weight gain and loss. Saying high insulin levels make it harder to burn fat cells with the same energy expenditure, and the opposite on lower insulin levels. This might be what they are referring to. I'm not a molecular scientist (just a computer scientist), and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do get the feeling there is something to the CARB/INSULIN vs LOWCARB/LOWINSULIN level thing in terms of fat burning. I mean, across the board, celebrities shed massive amounts of fat when they go low carb. It has to be more than just a coincidence.
At the same energy expenditure, if fat loss was inhibited, your body would have to consume something else, so muscle probably.
However, studies have shown (I hate saying this without providing sources, sorry), that especially fat people (who have high fasting glucose, IR and thus higher resting insulin levels) tend to lose almost entirely fat and no lean mass, while lean individuals (who generally are insulin sensitive and have low blood glucose and resting insulin levels) will rather lose higher amounts of muscle, because of their body composition. Those haven't tried to show anything about insulin stalling fat loss, just how little lean mass is lost in obese people even without strength training.
Also there've been a few studies lately targetting that insulin hypothesis in particular, for example Hall's "Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity"
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
Showing basically no difference in fat loss between a high carb and a lowish carb diet at the same intake.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.
Well, a lot I have read talks about the effects of insulin on weight gain and loss. Saying high insulin levels make it harder to burn fat cells with the same energy expenditure, and the opposite on lower insulin levels. This might be what they are referring to. I'm not a molecular scientist (just a computer scientist), and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do get the feeling there is something to the CARB/INSULIN vs LOWCARB/LOWINSULIN level thing in terms of fat burning. I mean, across the board, celebrities shed massive amounts of fat when they go low carb. It has to be more than just a coincidence.
At the same energy expenditure, if fat loss was inhibited, your body would have to consume something else, so muscle probably.
However, studies have shown (I hate saying this without providing sources, sorry), that especially fat people (who have high fasting glucose, IR and thus higher resting insulin levels) tend to lose almost entirely fat and no lean mass, while lean individuals (who generally are insulin sensitive and have low blood glucose and resting insulin levels) will rather lose higher amounts of muscle, because of their body composition. Those haven't tried to show anything about insulin stalling fat loss, just how little lean mass is lost in obese people even without strength training.
Also there've been a few studies lately targetting that insulin hypothesis in particular, for example Hall's "Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity"
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
Showing basically no difference in fat loss between a high carb and a lowish carb diet at the same intake.
Thanks. I have read about that as well. I sent that link to someone a few weeks ago. I do think that carbs and sugar have a larger negative impact on appetite. Maybe not for all, but for me, when I went low carb within 2 weeks my cravings went away. Sometimes I would realize it was 2 PM and I hadn't even had lunch. When I go low fat, and eat higher carbs, my appetite is always in "I am STARVING" mode. I always want to eat again 90-120 minutes after last eating on higher carb.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.
Well, a lot I have read talks about the effects of insulin on weight gain and loss. Saying high insulin levels make it harder to burn fat cells with the same energy expenditure, and the opposite on lower insulin levels. This might be what they are referring to. I'm not a molecular scientist (just a computer scientist), and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do get the feeling there is something to the CARB/INSULIN vs LOWCARB/LOWINSULIN level thing in terms of fat burning. I mean, across the board, celebrities shed massive amounts of fat when they go low carb. It has to be more than just a coincidence.
I honestly don't know much about it (and I used to work at a Holiday Inn Express!) but I do know that when you switch to low carb you lose water weight quickly and your body uses up its glycogen stores, so a lot of the initial weight loss is not actually fat loss.
Oh, and as a side note, I've heard people say that fat from bacon is impossible to lose.
1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.
Well, a lot I have read talks about the effects of insulin on weight gain and loss. Saying high insulin levels make it harder to burn fat cells with the same energy expenditure, and the opposite on lower insulin levels. This might be what they are referring to. I'm not a molecular scientist (just a computer scientist), and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do get the feeling there is something to the CARB/INSULIN vs LOWCARB/LOWINSULIN level thing in terms of fat burning. I mean, across the board, celebrities shed massive amounts of fat when they go low carb. It has to be more than just a coincidence.
I honestly don't know much about it (and I used to work at a Holiday Inn Express!) but I do know that when you switch to low carb you lose water weight quickly and your body uses up its glycogen stores, so a lot of the initial weight loss is not actually fat loss.
Oh, and as a side note, I've heard people say that fat from bacon is impossible to lose.
Mmm. Bacon.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sure, just like the tobacco industry managed to keep the part about it causing cancer under wraps.Oh wait.
Heh, I know this was a jest, but I think this is why many people trust their own experiences and perceptions above what they hear reported. We know in America that the sugar/tobacco/energy industries can change the science any time they want to, since they run the show.
There isn't a lot of motivation to call out sugar and denounce it (for the most part everyone likes the way it tastes, why would we?). So when I see studies that say sugar is bad, I tend to think they are more neutral than the ones that say wine/chocolate/caffeine/sugar is good for you!
But they can't. That's the point. All the money in the world didn't help the tobacco industry and there's warning signs on tobacco products world wide with some very graphic imagery in some countries.
Alcohol excess being bad for the liver and even increasing your chance of cancer is widely known.
Transfats are to be mostly/completely removed out of food stuffs by the end of next year if I remember right.
Why is that? Because there was hard evidence for it. No hard evidence of something being inherently harmful = no action taken. The only action taken about added sugar is "It's bad for your teeth" (because there's hard evidence for that) and "It adds calories with no further nutrition to food, potentially contributing to calorie excess and because of calorie excess, weight gain." Those are sensible things and backed by science.
Many of the statements made in these sugar threads are not backed by science at all, or grossly exaggerated or in case of the addiction thing, preliminary rat studies both taken out of context and taken to be 1:1 applicable to humans, which they aren't.8 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
You can stand behind what you said, but it's obesity that contributes to the risk of T2D. It's not only sugar that makes people obese. Your statement is hypothetical.
Do you think sugar can cause people to be more prone to overeat?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
For me personally, I can tell you that sugar makes me high. Literally. I get a hard buzz when I eat sugar. It makes me so very very very happy while I am eating it. I usually feel terrible later, but at the time of consumption, I like it more than being drunk from alcohol or other options. Since I was a young child, eating candy/chocolate was a primary objective. Back then I didn't know anything about calories, carbs, or weight gain. I was a kid, and I just wanted it. I would eat an entire pillowcase of Halloween candy as fast as I could, only stopping if I felt I was going to vomit.
I had no other compulsive behaviors. Gambling? Alcohol? Drugs? Other foods? Nothing. Just the sugar. To a degree, high carb foods have a similar but lesser effect on me (bagels, pizza, italian bread), but nothing like sugar.
I used to race BMX as a kid, and they sew the phrase "Snicker Powered" on my jersey, because I would eat a Snickers bar before each race, get a huge rush of pleasure and energy, and then go out and crush the competition.
I tried about 10 different diets between the ages of 25 and 40, everything from Atkins, to Body for Life, to calorie counting. None of them worked, even though I badly wanted them too. Until one day, at age 36, I tried Paleo. In Paleo, I was forced to cut added sugar out, and even encouraged to minimize sweet fruits to small amounts.
I spent two weeks in terrible withdrawal. Really bad headaches, and I felt sick. I told my wife I actually thought there was something seriously wrong with me and I should see a doctor, because I felt like I was dying. But I had read about the "carb flu", and decided to push through it. At the end of week 2, all of my cravings fell away. And over the next 18 months I lost 50 pounds and reached my goal weight.
I found that if I had any added sugar, even 18 months later, it triggered me to becoming a T-Rex, craving more cookies/donuts/cake/frosting. Heck, I could eat the frosting off of 10 cupcakes and leave the cake behind. So like a guy with an alcohol problem (I have friends who are AA), I have to try to avoid sugar entirely, and even stay out of sugar situations as I lose my ability to make decisions when I get around it too much.
So yes, I personally think that sugar is the cause, at least for me. I have no problem admitting that it's not sugar (which just like nicotine or gambling in itself can be considered a harmless thing) but perhaps my biological make-up, but that was my original point. How it affects some people is different.
Sounds like maybe your real problem is with self control in general.
If someone has a dependence problem, we tend to label it as a disease. Alcohol, drugs, etc. But if it's sugar, well then it's just a weak mind (the way we used to feel about alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling).
Because dependence on sugar does not exist. It's not a thing.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »This thread has turned into a full blown derp volcano.
I think normality has been resumed. 1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure, just like the tobacco industry managed to keep the part about it causing cancer under wraps.Oh wait.
Heh, I know this was a jest, but I think this is why many people trust their own experiences and perceptions above what they hear reported. We know in America that the sugar/tobacco/energy industries can change the science any time they want to, since they run the show.
There isn't a lot of motivation to call out sugar and denounce it (for the most part everyone likes the way it tastes, why would we?). So when I see studies that say sugar is bad, I tend to think they are more neutral than the ones that say wine/chocolate/caffeine/sugar is good for you!
But they can't. That's the point. All the money in the world didn't help the tobacco industry and there's warning signs on tobacco products world wide with some very graphic imagery in some countries.
Alcohol excess being bad for the liver and even increasing your chance of cancer is widely known.
Transfats are to be mostly/completely removed out of food stuffs by the end of next year if I remember right.
Why is that? Because there was hard evidence for it. No hard evidence of something being inherently harmful = no action taken. The only action taken about added sugar is "It's bad for your teeth" (because there's hard evidence for that) and "It adds calories with no further nutrition to food, potentially contributing to calorie excess and because of calorie excess, weight gain." Those are sensible things and backed by science.
Many of the statements made in these sugar threads are not backed by science at all, or grossly exaggerated or in case of the addiction thing, preliminary rat studies both taken out of context and taken to be 1:1 applicable to humans, which they aren't.
Bingo2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure, just like the tobacco industry managed to keep the part about it causing cancer under wraps.Oh wait.
Heh, I know this was a jest, but I think this is why many people trust their own experiences and perceptions above what they hear reported. We know in America that the sugar/tobacco/energy industries can change the science any time they want to, since they run the show.
There isn't a lot of motivation to call out sugar and denounce it (for the most part everyone likes the way it tastes, why would we?). So when I see studies that say sugar is bad, I tend to think they are more neutral than the ones that say wine/chocolate/caffeine/sugar is good for you!
But they can't. That's the point. All the money in the world didn't help the tobacco industry and there's warning signs on tobacco products world wide with some very graphic imagery in some countries.
Alcohol excess being bad for the liver and even increasing your chance of cancer is widely known.
Transfats are to be mostly/completely removed out of food stuffs by the end of next year if I remember right.
Why is that? Because there was hard evidence for it. No hard evidence of something being inherently harmful = no action taken. The only action taken about added sugar is "It's bad for your teeth" (because there's hard evidence for that) and "It adds calories with no further nutrition to food, potentially contributing to calorie excess and because of calorie excess, weight gain." Those are sensible things and backed by science.
Many of the statements made in these sugar threads are not backed by science at all, or grossly exaggerated or in case of the addiction thing, preliminary rat studies both taken out of context and taken to be 1:1 applicable to humans, which they aren't.
All of what you said is true, but you left out the part about how these were only recently proven true, after being denied (or hidden) for decades before coming out. Some scientists claimed that smoking was causing cancer 40 years before the government admitted it, and even that was in phases (first it was only when pregnant). We're still finding out how bad it really is every day, and it keeps getting worse.
Trans fats weren't always considered bad. It took a long time to get anyone to believe that.
One thing you reminded me of. Lustig made mention of how the liver processes sugar the same way it does alcohol, which I found personally interesting because when I went to see a doctor around age 30, and they did a CT scan, they saw I had a "fatty liver". The doctor told me I needed to cut way back on the alcohol, and that I clearly had a huge alcohol problem. I was shocked by this, because I was a casual drinker. Sometimes I would go without a drink for a month or two, other times once or twice a week. Once in a while, a hard night of drinking with the guys, but that was maybe 3-4 times per year. This guy was calling me an alcoholic.
Since then, and going Paleo (although these days I am not following any particular diet, just trying to count calories), I actually drink slightly more often than I did then, and my fatty liver is gone. What changed? I eat about 10% the amount of added sugar that I used to, even if the calories are similar.
Now, NAFLD (Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease) in earlier stages in supposed to be somewhat harmless, and is reversible. But I always wondered if my body processed sugar the way it does alcohol, and lead to that. No science here, just correlation admittedly.
0 -
Well, if there is someone more literate in long and boring biological processes than me, they can check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructolysis and
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh294/245-255.pdf
and compare how the liver processes those two things.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.
Well, a lot I have read talks about the effects of insulin on weight gain and loss. Saying high insulin levels make it harder to burn fat cells with the same energy expenditure, and the opposite on lower insulin levels. This might be what they are referring to. I'm not a molecular scientist (just a computer scientist), and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do get the feeling there is something to the CARB/INSULIN vs LOWCARB/LOWINSULIN level thing in terms of fat burning. I mean, across the board, celebrities shed massive amounts of fat when they go low carb. It has to be more than just a coincidence.
At the same energy expenditure, if fat loss was inhibited, your body would have to consume something else, so muscle probably.
However, studies have shown (I hate saying this without providing sources, sorry), that especially fat people (who have high fasting glucose, IR and thus higher resting insulin levels) tend to lose almost entirely fat and no lean mass, while lean individuals (who generally are insulin sensitive and have low blood glucose and resting insulin levels) will rather lose higher amounts of muscle, because of their body composition. Those haven't tried to show anything about insulin stalling fat loss, just how little lean mass is lost in obese people even without strength training.
Also there've been a few studies lately targetting that insulin hypothesis in particular, for example Hall's "Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity"
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
Showing basically no difference in fat loss between a high carb and a lowish carb diet at the same intake.
Thanks. I have read about that as well. I sent that link to someone a few weeks ago. I do think that carbs and sugar have a larger negative impact on appetite. Maybe not for all, but for me, when I went low carb within 2 weeks my cravings went away. Sometimes I would realize it was 2 PM and I hadn't even had lunch. When I go low fat, and eat higher carbs, my appetite is always in "I am STARVING" mode. I always want to eat again 90-120 minutes after last eating on higher carb.
Some of this is also meal composition. Getting things in balance for satiety is important, and having protein, carbs, and fat in some ratio (based on personal preference) at every meal is usually optimal for feeling full. I think there's very few people out there who can have dry toast for breakfast and not be ready to eat their own arm an hour later, but I feel the same way if I only have a few slices of turkey and nothing else.
I'm curious what you mean by "low fat" - there's still a minimum you should try to meet. If you go higher carb, is your fat dipping below your minimum?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
Related tidbit, but when polar bears feed on a seal, you'll often see that they only eat the fat off of it, and leave the entire carcass laying on the ice. Of course sometimes they eat the meat as well, but often it's just the fat. The reason is indeed the one you state above, namely, that protein will burn too many calories to digest, and they want the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak, so they consume the fat.
The extra calories burned from protein don't make a big difference for humans. ~7 kcal per 1000 kcal of total calories per 10% increased protein was determined.
Example: 1500 kcal diet, 15% protein vs. 35% protein (which is absolute minimum vs. bodybuilder optimum amounts) results in 7 * 1.5 (from 1500 kcal total) * 2 (from 20% more protein than the comparison diet) = 21 extra calories burned.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
They conclude a calorie is a calorie btw.
Yep! I was referring only to polar bears!0 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
You can stand behind what you said, but it's obesity that contributes to the risk of T2D. It's not only sugar that makes people obese. Your statement is hypothetical.
Do you think sugar can cause people to be more prone to overeat?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
For me personally, I can tell you that sugar makes me high. Literally. I get a hard buzz when I eat sugar. It makes me so very very very happy while I am eating it. I usually feel terrible later, but at the time of consumption, I like it more than being drunk from alcohol or other options. Since I was a young child, eating candy/chocolate was a primary objective. Back then I didn't know anything about calories, carbs, or weight gain. I was a kid, and I just wanted it. I would eat an entire pillowcase of Halloween candy as fast as I could, only stopping if I felt I was going to vomit.
I had no other compulsive behaviors. Gambling? Alcohol? Drugs? Other foods? Nothing. Just the sugar. To a degree, high carb foods have a similar but lesser effect on me (bagels, pizza, italian bread), but nothing like sugar.
I used to race BMX as a kid, and they sew the phrase "Snicker Powered" on my jersey, because I would eat a Snickers bar before each race, get a huge rush of pleasure and energy, and then go out and crush the competition.
I tried about 10 different diets between the ages of 25 and 40, everything from Atkins, to Body for Life, to calorie counting. None of them worked, even though I badly wanted them too. Until one day, at age 36, I tried Paleo. In Paleo, I was forced to cut added sugar out, and even encouraged to minimize sweet fruits to small amounts.
I spent two weeks in terrible withdrawal. Really bad headaches, and I felt sick. I told my wife I actually thought there was something seriously wrong with me and I should see a doctor, because I felt like I was dying. But I had read about the "carb flu", and decided to push through it. At the end of week 2, all of my cravings fell away. And over the next 18 months I lost 50 pounds and reached my goal weight.
I found that if I had any added sugar, even 18 months later, it triggered me to becoming a T-Rex, craving more cookies/donuts/cake/frosting. Heck, I could eat the frosting off of 10 cupcakes and leave the cake behind. So like a guy with an alcohol problem (I have friends who are AA), I have to try to avoid sugar entirely, and even stay out of sugar situations as I lose my ability to make decisions when I get around it too much.
So yes, I personally think that sugar is the cause, at least for me. I have no problem admitting that it's not sugar (which just like nicotine or gambling in itself can be considered a harmless thing) but perhaps my biological make-up, but that was my original point. How it affects some people is different.
I completely agree with you and it has been my experience as well. I had a particularly hard time when I started living with my husband because he loves sweets. He always has to get cookies/brownies/cakes etc when we or he alone go grocery shopping. I gained around 20Lbs within first few months. He just couldn't understand why I cannot just eat one cookie and stop. He used to tell me that I am an adult and I should decide to eat one cookie and stick to it.
One day, he was feeling very sad about his alcoholic cousin who binges on alcohol every now and then and how damaging it was for him and his family. I told him that his cousin is an adult and he should decide to have one drink and stick to it. DH got very angry that I was so insensitive to the situation. Then I reminded him that he said the same thing when I couldn't stop at one cookie and how was it different with his cousin? I also asked if he would keep alcohol in front of his cousin in his house day in and day out and ask him to not to drink as he was doing the same thing with me in our house.
It clicked in his mind and stopped getting so much sugary stuff home. If he feels like eating a cookie or cake, then he gets one cookie/one slice of cake and rarely I do take a bite.3 -
In my case it's the sugar. Well sugar and carbs.
Why it's the sugar and what's happening I can only speculate but it is the sugar. I've had poor eating habits that needed to be corrected and I have. And I understand eating for pleasure. I still love eating for pleasure and feasting and do it regularly -- mostly in a planned, responsible manner but sometimes just because sooo good type of thing and I'll eat more than I wanted to (low carb foods). There is a clear difference between eating for pleasure (and even eating rather mindlessly) and what I experience from too much sugar/carbs.
Maybe the difference is so clear to me because the change was relatively sudden and there's a clearly defined before and after? (Depression led to poor eating and exercise habits, which worsened the depression, which led to abusing food and becoming obese as the natural conclusion to that cycle.) The depression lifted and I went about correcting the bad eating habits, eating a proper diet, exercising and losing the weight. Which is all fine and good and what you do.
Except I'm left with a carb intolerance and "triggers" that I believe - for good reason I think - that are physical in nature. I expect the science to catch up to what I already "know" sometime in my lifetime.5 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
Low carb diets don't burn more calories due to macro nutrient ratios than other diets. Now, a very high protein diet or low protein diet would have a difference (though not that huge in the scheme of things) in terms of how many calories were burnt in digestion, but there are reasons to avoid both such diets. Being able to eat more calories on paper (which likely does not translate into any satiety difference) would not be a good basis to devote a huge percentage of calories to protein, beyond the usual recommendations for performance, preserving muscle mass.
As for the claim that protein is not as tasty to the taste buds, that's obviously personal. To me, it most certainly is at least as tasty, at least in some of its forms.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions