Eating more later in the day?

Options
1356789

Replies

  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    OP, my night meal is usually over 1000kcal. I've lost almost 70lbs. It doesn't hurt anything.
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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