Eating more later in the day?

2456

Replies

  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    edited August 2016
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    To the OP:

    I realize that nowhere in your initial post do you mention sugar being an issue for you. Apologies to you for my participation in going off topic, but the sugar misinformation brought into this discussion needed to be addressed.

    Unless, of course, your big dinner at night consists of a large tub of ice cream, an entire chocolate cake and a box of ding-dongs. ;)

    To reiterate: Meal timing is based on personal preference, and provided you don't exceed the amount of calories each day that is needed to attain (or maintain) your weight goals, timing has no effect one way or the other. It's about how many calories you consume in a day and not when you consume them. :)

    I'll leave this discussion cause obviously I'm being attacked... not sure why.

    But I do have to say, this is what I said in my initial post before I was guided off topic, with citations.

    Eta: my bad, you started off great then you guided the convo off topic yourself by talking about sugar out of the blue.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited August 2016
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    To the OP:

    I realize that nowhere in your initial post do you mention sugar being an issue for you. Apologies to you for my participation in going off topic, but the sugar misinformation brought into this discussion needed to be addressed.

    Unless, of course, your big dinner at night consists of a large tub of ice cream, an entire chocolate cake and a box of ding-dongs. ;)

    To reiterate: Meal timing is based on personal preference, and provided you don't exceed the amount of calories each day that is needed to attain (or maintain) your weight goals, timing has no effect one way or the other. It's about how many calories you consume in a day and not when you consume them. :)

    I'll leave this discussion cause obviously I'm being attacked... not sure why.

    But I do have to say, this is what I said in my initial post before I was guided off topic, with citations.

    You're not being personally attacked. The junk science you're relying upon is just being disputed in order to avoid confusing the OP and anybody else who may read the thread. "Disagreeing" does not equal "attacking".

    How is it junk science? I provided citations to a legitimate, peer reviewed article. How is this junk science?

    You were on the right track with Lyle McDonald, who is somebody I find trustworthy and his advice solidly based upon science. Then you linked to Mercola and Authority Nutrition, both of which are crackpot junk science sites which are about as reliable as Dr. Oz. If you follow Lyle, I'm surprised that the name "Mercola" can even pass your lips without a contemptuous sneer.
  • bshrom
    bshrom Posts: 71 Member
    It does not matter at all what time of the day you eat the calories. I work 3rd shift so most of my food is eaten between the hours of 8pm- 3:30am and I have no trouble losing weight.
  • kgirlhart
    kgirlhart Posts: 5,171 Member
    edited August 2016
    I have lost 60 pounds and moved into maintenance by eating about half of my calories for lunch and breakfast and the other half for dinner and a snack after dinner. I also eat back my fitbit adjustment so really I have more than half my calories in the evening. As long as you stay at your calorie goal you will be fine. I also did not give up sugar and I start my day with coffee with real sugar and usually some fruit with my eggs and yogurt (also sweet). If you don't have medical issues with sugar then it is not a problem to have sugar in the morning or any other time of day that you want it.

    ETA I think that saving calories to eat a nice dinner with your family is an awesome idea. For me not being able to eat in those situations would eventually make me give up and go back to my old eating habits.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    kgirlhart wrote: »
    I have lost 60 pounds and moved into maintenance by eating about half of my calories for lunch and breakfast and the other half for dinner and a snack after dinner. I also eat back my fitbit adjustment so really I have more than half my calories in the evening. As long as you stay at your calorie goal you will be fine. I also did not give up sugar and I start my day with coffee with real sugar and usually some fruit with my eggs and yogurt (also sweet). If you don't have medical issues with sugar then it is not a problem to have sugar in the morning or any other time of day that you want it.

    ETA I think that saving calories to eat a nice dinner with your family is an awesome idea. For me not being able to eat in those situations would eventually make me give up and go back to my old eating habits.

    Twinsies!!
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    edited August 2016
    snickerscharlie wrote: »

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    From that study, this quote, "Though there are many biological commonalities between sweetened diets and drugs of abuse, the addictive potential of the former relative to the latter is currently unknown."
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    edited August 2016
    I also tend to eat most of my calories later in the day. I'll have coffee first thing in the morning, but generally skip breakfast and have a light, early lunch. I don't really get hungry until dinnertime, so this works well for me. I also leave room for some snacks after dinner while watching TV. Gummy bears or some heavenly chocolate are my favourites. :)

    Edited to add: And I lost 75 lbs and reached my goal weight in under a year eating this way. ;)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem.

    OP said nothing to suggest that she has a problem.

    She asked if it's okay that her lifestyle fits best with a small breakfast, larger lunch, large dinner pattern. Many people prefer this pattern for similar reasons, such as that they lack time in the morning and enjoy having a larger meal at dinner, which tends to be a more social/family meal. (I tend to have a more balanced pattern or eat the most at lunch, because of my own lifestyle and that I tend to eat dinner late.)

    As you yourself said, it's fine, won't matter.

    So no problem. No need to speculate on what she eats for breakfast or tell her she must change it.

    (For the record, I used to eat almost no sugar at breakfast and lately have been eating lots, since I've been obsessed with summer fruits and just craving cold fruit and veg based breakfasts when the weather is hot. It has made zero difference on how much I eat the rest of the day.)
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Your dinners sound fabulous and you're doing great by the sound of it :) Curious, what is dietetic, is that something you have to make, and if so, why?
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    FrumMama wrote: »
    Thank you to everyone for replying! This was my first post on here, and I've been doing this for less than a week, so I really appreciate the info. And I don't mind the tangent either. For me, I know that potato chips and similar crunchy snacks are a huge trigger and lead to cravings. Sugar doesn't really. But in generally, I eat healthy meals. When I make dinner, the food is definitely healthy...but may not be dietetic. For example, tonight I'm making whole wheat pasta with eggs and cheese and spinach. I have four little ones, ages 8 years down to 9 months, so I need to cook foods they'll eat. (And they love enchilladas with zucchini and peppers, Korean bolgogi with cabbage and carrots, and Middle Eastern falafel with lots of veggies, so it's not that they're picky.) Also, one of my kids is on meds that suppress his appetite all day, so he eats a ton at dinner. My others do too, and always have. So it's hard for me to control the quantity I eat then. All day long it's much easier. Eating a lot at dinner also helps me avoid the nighttime munchies.

    So it's great to know that I'm okay. Thanks, everyone!

    Your meals sound awesome. Any chance you want to adopt a crabby old lady? I will help with the dishes without whining (much). There is no need to make special foods for yourself, but controlling your portions will be important. As for the tangents, they happen a lot around here. :smile:
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    edited August 2016
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....

    You seem to be missing a step, however. It only becomes scientific evidence applicable to humans when and if the study progresses beyond the lab rat stage and is actually proven in human clinical trials.

    So although a study involving rats and sugar and cocaine might hold promise of translating across the species barrier, until and unless those trials actually take place, this remains nothing more than a theory and is not the scientific evidence you would have us believe.

    You're both taking my comments out of context and missing the point I was trying to make.

    1.) An OP consistently made the claim that the study was of rats, and not humans therefore it can't be applied to humans. I know that humans aren't rats. That isn't the point of me bringing it up. The point was that sugar can be addictive and that the body does not need sugar. I was pointing to the original OP that IF they ate sugar in the mornings, that's an IF as in THEORETICAL, it COULD POSSIBLY cause more hunger because of how other animals have reacted to sugar. THEORETICAL, IF and COULD.

    2.) IF the OP is struggling with increasing hunger as the day goes on, and IF sugar could cause hunger to increase, then the OP COULD try to AVOID sugar to see if that stops the increasing hunger.

    As for the comment "sugar is the devil": sugar is not, whatsoever needed in a healthy diet. Is not. This isn't meant to say "in order to lose weight one must avoid sugar", which is something the other OP's kept confusing.


    The study SUGGESTED (as studies do) that sugar COULD HAVE addictive qualities. Isn't definitive, it isn't proven, it's just a suggestion. And as a side note studies don't ever prove anything. They only add to scientific evidence. Gravity itself is still just a theory. Meaning, someone could come up with evidence that it MIGHT NOT be true. This is how science works, this is what I was saying.

    I can't cite it but it's known in the scientific, fitness community that carbs cause hunger to increase. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    If you don't take Lyle McDonald's word, then I don't have anything to say to you.
  • FrumMama
    FrumMama Posts: 79 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »

    Your meals sound awesome. Any chance you want to adopt a crabby old lady? I will help with the dishes without whining (much). There is no need to make special foods for yourself, but controlling your portions will be important. As for the tangents, they happen a lot around here. :smile:

    Sure, come on over! I actually really enjoy cooking. Can't stand baking, though, which means no goodies here! Good way to keep from eating is just not to bake anything...but I love making food that my kids enjoy, especially when it's not typical "kid food." Still, they're big fans of pizza and pasta. Not the best for a mommy who needs to watch what she eats ;)

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    FrumMama wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »

    Your meals sound awesome. Any chance you want to adopt a crabby old lady? I will help with the dishes without whining (much). There is no need to make special foods for yourself, but controlling your portions will be important. As for the tangents, they happen a lot around here. :smile:

    Sure, come on over! I actually really enjoy cooking. Can't stand baking, though, which means no goodies here! Good way to keep from eating is just not to bake anything...but I love making food that my kids enjoy, especially when it's not typical "kid food." Still, they're big fans of pizza and pasta. Not the best for a mommy who needs to watch what she eats ;)

    Ah, I love baking, but there's only so much my coworkers will eat without beating me for it, and I can't eat as much of it as I would like (why I'm here). So I don't get to bake as often as I would like. I enjoy trying different types of foods. Thanks for the invite! What time is supper? :laugh:
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....

    You seem to be missing a step, however. It only becomes scientific evidence applicable to humans when and if the study progresses beyond the lab rat stage and is actually proven in human clinical trials.

    So although a study involving rats and sugar and cocaine might hold promise of translating across the species barrier, until and unless those trials actually take place, this remains nothing more than a theory and is not the scientific evidence you would have us believe.

    You're both taking my comments out of context and missing the point I was trying to make.

    1.) An OP consistently made the claim that the study was of rats, and not humans therefore it can't be applied to humans. I know that humans aren't rats. That isn't the point of me bringing it up. The point was that sugar can be addictive and that the body does not need sugar. I was pointing to the original OP that IF they ate sugar in the mornings, that's an IF as in THEORETICAL, it COULD POSSIBLY cause more hunger because of how other animals have reacted to sugar. THEORETICAL, IF and COULD.

    2.) IF the OP is struggling with increasing hunger as the day goes on, and IF sugar could cause hunger to increase, then the OP COULD try to AVOID sugar to see if that stops the increasing hunger.

    As for the comment "sugar is the devil": sugar is not, whatsoever needed in a healthy diet. Is not. This isn't meant to say "in order to lose weight one must avoid sugar", which is something the other OP's kept confusing.


    The study SUGGESTED (as studies do) that sugar COULD HAVE addictive qualities. Isn't definitive, it isn't proven, it's just a suggestion. And as a side note studies don't ever prove anything. They only add to scientific evidence. Gravity itself is still just a theory. Meaning, someone could come up with evidence that it MIGHT NOT be true. This is how science works, this is what I was saying.

    I can't cite it but it's known in the scientific, fitness community that carbs cause hunger to increase. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    If you don't take Lyle McDonald's word, then I don't have anything to say to you.

    Curious. Did you read the link? Looking for "the sugar is bad" in link.
  • daniip_la
    daniip_la Posts: 678 Member
    OP, my night meal is usually over 1000kcal. I've lost almost 70lbs. It doesn't hurt anything.
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....

    You seem to be missing a step, however. It only becomes scientific evidence applicable to humans when and if the study progresses beyond the lab rat stage and is actually proven in human clinical trials.

    So although a study involving rats and sugar and cocaine might hold promise of translating across the species barrier, until and unless those trials actually take place, this remains nothing more than a theory and is not the scientific evidence you would have us believe.

    You're both taking my comments out of context and missing the point I was trying to make.

    1.) An OP consistently made the claim that the study was of rats, and not humans therefore it can't be applied to humans. I know that humans aren't rats. That isn't the point of me bringing it up. The point was that sugar can be addictive and that the body does not need sugar. I was pointing to the original OP that IF they ate sugar in the mornings, that's an IF as in THEORETICAL, it COULD POSSIBLY cause more hunger because of how other animals have reacted to sugar. THEORETICAL, IF and COULD.

    2.) IF the OP is struggling with increasing hunger as the day goes on, and IF sugar could cause hunger to increase, then the OP COULD try to AVOID sugar to see if that stops the increasing hunger.

    As for the comment "sugar is the devil": sugar is not, whatsoever needed in a healthy diet. Is not. This isn't meant to say "in order to lose weight one must avoid sugar", which is something the other OP's kept confusing.


    The study SUGGESTED (as studies do) that sugar COULD HAVE addictive qualities. Isn't definitive, it isn't proven, it's just a suggestion. And as a side note studies don't ever prove anything. They only add to scientific evidence. Gravity itself is still just a theory. Meaning, someone could come up with evidence that it MIGHT NOT be true. This is how science works, this is what I was saying.

    I can't cite it but it's known in the scientific, fitness community that carbs cause hunger to increase. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    If you don't take Lyle McDonald's word, then I don't have anything to say to you.

    Curious. Did you read the link? Looking for "the sugar is bad" in link.

    This isn't the link for the "sugar is bad" claim. This link is related to the fact that eating carbs makes you want to eat more carbs.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....

    You seem to be missing a step, however. It only becomes scientific evidence applicable to humans when and if the study progresses beyond the lab rat stage and is actually proven in human clinical trials.

    So although a study involving rats and sugar and cocaine might hold promise of translating across the species barrier, until and unless those trials actually take place, this remains nothing more than a theory and is not the scientific evidence you would have us believe.

    You're both taking my comments out of context and missing the point I was trying to make.

    1.) An OP consistently made the claim that the study was of rats, and not humans therefore it can't be applied to humans. I know that humans aren't rats. That isn't the point of me bringing it up. The point was that sugar can be addictive and that the body does not need sugar. I was pointing to the original OP that IF they ate sugar in the mornings, that's an IF as in THEORETICAL, it COULD POSSIBLY cause more hunger because of how other animals have reacted to sugar. THEORETICAL, IF and COULD.

    2.) IF the OP is struggling with increasing hunger as the day goes on, and IF sugar could cause hunger to increase, then the OP COULD try to AVOID sugar to see if that stops the increasing hunger.

    As for the comment "sugar is the devil": sugar is not, whatsoever needed in a healthy diet. Is not. This isn't meant to say "in order to lose weight one must avoid sugar", which is something the other OP's kept confusing.


    The study SUGGESTED (as studies do) that sugar COULD HAVE addictive qualities. Isn't definitive, it isn't proven, it's just a suggestion. And as a side note studies don't ever prove anything. They only add to scientific evidence. Gravity itself is still just a theory. Meaning, someone could come up with evidence that it MIGHT NOT be true. This is how science works, this is what I was saying.

    I can't cite it but it's known in the scientific, fitness community that carbs cause hunger to increase. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    If you don't take Lyle McDonald's word, then I don't have anything to say to you.

    Curious. Did you read the link? Looking for "the sugar is bad" in link.

    This isn't the link for the "sugar is bad" claim. This link is related to the fact that eating carbs makes you want to eat more carbs.

    But it doesn't say anything about eating carbs makes you want to eat more carbs. Did you have the wrong link?
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    edited August 2016
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....

    You seem to be missing a step, however. It only becomes scientific evidence applicable to humans when and if the study progresses beyond the lab rat stage and is actually proven in human clinical trials.

    So although a study involving rats and sugar and cocaine might hold promise of translating across the species barrier, until and unless those trials actually take place, this remains nothing more than a theory and is not the scientific evidence you would have us believe.

    You're both taking my comments out of context and missing the point I was trying to make.

    1.) An OP consistently made the claim that the study was of rats, and not humans therefore it can't be applied to humans. I know that humans aren't rats. That isn't the point of me bringing it up. The point was that sugar can be addictive and that the body does not need sugar. I was pointing to the original OP that IF they ate sugar in the mornings, that's an IF as in THEORETICAL, it COULD POSSIBLY cause more hunger because of how other animals have reacted to sugar. THEORETICAL, IF and COULD.

    2.) IF the OP is struggling with increasing hunger as the day goes on, and IF sugar could cause hunger to increase, then the OP COULD try to AVOID sugar to see if that stops the increasing hunger.

    As for the comment "sugar is the devil": sugar is not, whatsoever needed in a healthy diet. Is not. This isn't meant to say "in order to lose weight one must avoid sugar", which is something the other OP's kept confusing.


    The study SUGGESTED (as studies do) that sugar COULD HAVE addictive qualities. Isn't definitive, it isn't proven, it's just a suggestion. And as a side note studies don't ever prove anything. They only add to scientific evidence. Gravity itself is still just a theory. Meaning, someone could come up with evidence that it MIGHT NOT be true. This is how science works, this is what I was saying.

    I can't cite it but it's known in the scientific, fitness community that carbs cause hunger to increase. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    If you don't take Lyle McDonald's word, then I don't have anything to say to you.

    Curious. Did you read the link? Looking for "the sugar is bad" in link.

    This isn't the link for the "sugar is bad" claim. This link is related to the fact that eating carbs makes you want to eat more carbs.

    But it doesn't say anything about eating carbs makes you want to eat more carbs. Did you have the wrong link?

    Did you not read the article? It's definitely in there... one of my favorite articles to cite.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    jwcanfield wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Dr." Mercola is a complete quack. You stated that sugar being evil is "scientifically known." Neither of those two 'sources' have anything to do with legitimate peer-reviewed science.

    So first off, I didn't claim the fact that "sugar is the devil" as scientifically know. I claimed that it's scientifically known that eating sugar or simple carbs promotes the urge to eat more sugar or carbs.

    Secondly, did you even look at the links? This is the original study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/. Click on that, read it. Then come back and tell me I don't have scientific backing.

    I'm not a rat! LOL Really!!

    Well, no *kitten* you're not a rat. These studies are meant to suggest that sugar is very addictive. Rats don't have as addictive qualities as humans. Do you know how many medical break throughs have been made by using rats as study subjects first?

    But the studies were done with rats.

    Many studies start with lab rats - human trials follow. Everything from the effects of saccharine to carcinogenics. So a rat-based study is not to be dismissed quickly. To reference one isn't calling a person a rat - that's just the way it's done.

    Thank you. Someone who understands the process of science. I know you aren't necessarily siding with me on the other topics but we can agree on the process of science. Whew....

    You seem to be missing a step, however. It only becomes scientific evidence applicable to humans when and if the study progresses beyond the lab rat stage and is actually proven in human clinical trials.

    So although a study involving rats and sugar and cocaine might hold promise of translating across the species barrier, until and unless those trials actually take place, this remains nothing more than a theory and is not the scientific evidence you would have us believe.

    You're both taking my comments out of context and missing the point I was trying to make.

    1.) An OP consistently made the claim that the study was of rats, and not humans therefore it can't be applied to humans. I know that humans aren't rats. That isn't the point of me bringing it up. The point was that sugar can be addictive and that the body does not need sugar. I was pointing to the original OP that IF they ate sugar in the mornings, that's an IF as in THEORETICAL, it COULD POSSIBLY cause more hunger because of how other animals have reacted to sugar. THEORETICAL, IF and COULD.

    2.) IF the OP is struggling with increasing hunger as the day goes on, and IF sugar could cause hunger to increase, then the OP COULD try to AVOID sugar to see if that stops the increasing hunger.

    As for the comment "sugar is the devil": sugar is not, whatsoever needed in a healthy diet. Is not. This isn't meant to say "in order to lose weight one must avoid sugar", which is something the other OP's kept confusing.


    The study SUGGESTED (as studies do) that sugar COULD HAVE addictive qualities. Isn't definitive, it isn't proven, it's just a suggestion. And as a side note studies don't ever prove anything. They only add to scientific evidence. Gravity itself is still just a theory. Meaning, someone could come up with evidence that it MIGHT NOT be true. This is how science works, this is what I was saying.

    I can't cite it but it's known in the scientific, fitness community that carbs cause hunger to increase. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    If you don't take Lyle McDonald's word, then I don't have anything to say to you.

    Curious. Did you read the link? Looking for "the sugar is bad" in link.

    This isn't the link for the "sugar is bad" claim. This link is related to the fact that eating carbs makes you want to eat more carbs.

    Except that Lyle correctly states that it's the increased protein that promotes the satiety and not the decreased carbohydrate content.

    Later in the article he mentions this:

    "Many people seem to show what might be popularly called ‘carbohydrate addiction’ (a term that is massively debated among obesity researchers) where eating even small amounts of carbs makes them want to eat more. In that case, a full blown removal of carbohydrates from the diet may be the only realistic way to limit caloric intake."

    If Lyle believed that this were a common issue he would very likely prescribe ketogenic diets to everyone.

    I read the link twice and still did not see this quote from Lyle. I must be blind. Is it later in the comments?
  • kickassketo
    kickassketo Posts: 42 Member
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

Categories