Eating more later in the day?
Replies
-
TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Sooo... saying it's the devil and just as addictive as cocaine is not to tell them not to eat it?
How much cocaine should I take per day?
I wouldn't advise taking any cocaine. Or sugar. Or MSG. All of which are edible, none of which are required for a healthy diet.
Remember when you asked us where you advised anyone not to eat sugar? You know that thing you swear you aren't doing? THAT, just then, was you advising people not to eat sugar. I'm done, because if you claim those words don't mean to not eat sugar you don't understand the English language.
It's like clockwork. I couldn't blink before he back peddled.
So what is everyone making for dinner tonight? I was thinking pasta with that really good ciabatta bread. Nmnmnm
I love how you keep avoiding the science articles I throw at you... really helps your credibility
Anyways, have fun eating!
You mean the studies that don't support your claims?
Again, do you know what high GI means? I'm assuming no cause you keep skirting the question...
It's a measure of the total rise in glucose.
It's also something that most people can disregard.
Only way I can see it has any relevance is if he's using a hypothetical of somebody sitting down to a nice, satisfying dinner of 100% pure glucose while in a fasted state.
Once a meal of mixed macronutrient composition comes into play (which encompasses, ohhhhh, about 99.99% of all meals), GI becomes irrelevant.1 -
msalicia116 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Sooo... saying it's the devil and just as addictive as cocaine is not to tell them not to eat it?
How much cocaine should I take per day?
I wouldn't advise taking any cocaine. Or sugar. Or MSG. All of which are edible, none of which are required for a healthy diet.
Remember when you asked us where you advised anyone not to eat sugar? You know that thing you swear you aren't doing? THAT, just then, was you advising people not to eat sugar. I'm done, because if you claim those words don't mean to not eat sugar you don't understand the English language.
It's like clockwork. I couldn't blink before he back peddled.
So what is everyone making for dinner tonight? I was thinking pasta with that really good ciabatta bread. Nmnmnm
I'm in the mood for dessert. Like breakfast for dinner, but only dessert. Lots and lots.1 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »cerise_noir 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.
Mercola? Authority (not) nutrition? Nope nope nope nope. Come on now....
Sugar is not evil. Sugar does not prevent weight loss. And BS it is as addictive as cocaine. I've worked with addicts throughout the years and I fond this comparison absolutely appalling, hurtful, disgusting....
My almost 100lbs weight loss proves that sugar does not cause weight gain or addiction to carbs. Who starting that crock of crap anyway? I ate 'clean' vegetarian for years and I was at my worst weight. My blood tests were awful, so yeah....
1. You are taking it out of context.
2. The point of saying sugar has shown in studies to be addictive (whether or not more than drugs), is an important point.
3. Mercola as an authority? Maybe not. But the study is real.
4. There is another study I cited that showed that eating carbs made people want to eat more carbs. Sugar are carbs...
The other study you posted matched calorie and macronutrient intake. They were comparing the GI of the entire meal, not the amount of carbohydrate.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract
"Design: With the use of a randomized, blinded, crossover design, 12 overweight or obese men aged 18–35 y consumed high- and low-GI meals controlled for calories, macronutrients, and palatability on 2 occasions. The primary outcome was cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity, which was assessed by using arterial spin-labeling functional magnetic resonance imaging 4 h after test meals. We hypothesized that brain activity would be greater after the high-GI meal in prespecified regions involved in eating behavior, reward, and craving. "
As shown in
Table 1, both test meals were composed
of similar ingredients and had the same macronutrient distri-
bution (ProNutra Software, version 3.3.0.10; Viocare Technol-
ogies Inc).
You cannot claim that the differences in hunger were related to the number of carbohydrates as that wasn't what was tested.
Yes, that's true. Do you know what contributes to high glycemic numbers? High blood sugar numbers. Do you know what increases blood sugar numbers? Carbohydrates.
As the study itself says: Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal.
Hmmm....
The study you linked does not support your claim, period.
It is NOT a measure of carbohydrate content, it's a comparison of the GI of an entire meal of mixed macronutrients.
Additionally, how do you explain these findings where the highest satiety food item is a high GI carbohydrate?
https://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf
Yes, as you've said before and I addressed recently. Do you know what high GI means?
I went back a few pages and you still have not addressed the satiety Index study where the white potato which is a high G.I. carbohydrate showed the greatest satiation.
How does this factor into your claims?
If carbohydrates make people hungry, and if meals with higher glycemic indicies cause hunger, why is the highest satiety food item a high glycemic carbohydrate?4 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »kickassketo wrote: »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.
Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.
You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.
What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.
Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.
A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.
People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!TravisGM92 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »kickassketo wrote: »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.
Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.
You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.
What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.
Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.
A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.
People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!
Quit saying people are blind to science. It's exhausting, and you're reaching. It reminds me of a tribe in Africa that says to the women that their brains are smaller and "it's only science!". Because if you say it like that, it must be true! Eye roll.
Following you derail this whole thread is astounding. You have back peddled so much, it's obvious you have a problem being wrong. I followed Atkins for 10 years, because of people like you providing opinions posing them as "science". 10 years! Literally afraid to eat carbs. I never once felt like a normal person that entire time. And it has taken me years to reprogram myself that it's CICO, and I can eat anything that fits into my calories. And I did gain in HFLC. Why? Because it was over my TDEE.
Your links are inconclusive. They don't specifically point to carbs or sugar, and using a food group with other macros doesn't single out carbs or sugar causing you to eat more or become addicted. I eat less now that I have a balanced diet. I feel more satiated because all those needs and wants are met. It's more satiating for me. Not to mention I don't have disordered eating product of some obsession over a gram of carbs or sugar touching my lips. See how that works. I said "for me". So when you want to preach about hunger and "knowing what the culprit is", have the decency to say that's what works for you! Instead of brainwashing people with nonscience/nonsense.
The science is easy without you contorting it. Protein and fat has satiating qualities, to increase your protein/fat reduces the risk of eating more calories than you need. Less calories= deficit= weight loss. Don't tell people not to eat carbs or sugar, or that it will increase their hunger because that is not true. Recommend increasing protein and fat. At least then we could move on from this train wreck.
So you're just gonna disregard my sources and support? Haha alrighty... if you want more techniques to losing fat other than counting calories which seems like most people on this thread are, let me know.
And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...
And I just have to add.. I think it's funny that I'm providing links and sources to an idea that carbs COULD increase hunger. Lyle McDonald, a very respected, scientific source, knows just as well as I do that it's a heavily debated topic. Meaning, there's currently evidence for both sides. You say "don't tell people that carbs increase hunger cause it's not true" show me the evidence. Show me the science and I'll stop posting on here.
Oh, and by the way, personal experience doesn't count.
See, this is the deal: OP did NOT say that she was too hungry to stay in her calories or was struggling with hunger AT ALL. Many of us do not. OP prefers for various family reasons to eat more at dinner and found it hard to eat a light dinner with others eating more -- totally understandable. OP also was not going over her calories due to the heavier dinner; she was eating light at other meals. Therefore this whole thing about carbs being a problem was either you misreading (the charitable explanation, which I don't currently think you deserve) or you intentionally trying to derail this thread and turn it into an anti carb diatribe.
I happen to find that getting in a decent amount of protein at breakfast works best for me. In that OP didn't seem to be having a problem with her calories or breakfasts, but wanted to know if her preferred meal pattern was okay, I didn't think it would be relevant to tell her to add more protein to breakfast, and I certainly have no reason to assume it was lacking in that area (just as you had no reason to assume she was eating a pop tart or whatever you chose to imagine to justify your irrelevant "advice.")7 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »cerise_noir 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.
Mercola? Authority (not) nutrition? Nope nope nope nope. Come on now....
Sugar is not evil. Sugar does not prevent weight loss. And BS it is as addictive as cocaine. I've worked with addicts throughout the years and I fond this comparison absolutely appalling, hurtful, disgusting....
My almost 100lbs weight loss proves that sugar does not cause weight gain or addiction to carbs. Who starting that crock of crap anyway? I ate 'clean' vegetarian for years and I was at my worst weight. My blood tests were awful, so yeah....
1. You are taking it out of context.
2. The point of saying sugar has shown in studies to be addictive (whether or not more than drugs), is an important point.
3. Mercola as an authority? Maybe not. But the study is real.
4. There is another study I cited that showed that eating carbs made people want to eat more carbs. Sugar are carbs...
The other study you posted matched calorie and macronutrient intake. They were comparing the GI of the entire meal, not the amount of carbohydrate.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract
"Design: With the use of a randomized, blinded, crossover design, 12 overweight or obese men aged 18–35 y consumed high- and low-GI meals controlled for calories, macronutrients, and palatability on 2 occasions. The primary outcome was cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity, which was assessed by using arterial spin-labeling functional magnetic resonance imaging 4 h after test meals. We hypothesized that brain activity would be greater after the high-GI meal in prespecified regions involved in eating behavior, reward, and craving. "
As shown in
Table 1, both test meals were composed
of similar ingredients and had the same macronutrient distri-
bution (ProNutra Software, version 3.3.0.10; Viocare Technol-
ogies Inc).
You cannot claim that the differences in hunger were related to the number of carbohydrates as that wasn't what was tested.
Yes, that's true. Do you know what contributes to high glycemic numbers? High blood sugar numbers. Do you know what increases blood sugar numbers? Carbohydrates.
As the study itself says: Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal.
Hmmm....
The study you linked does not support your claim, period.
It is NOT a measure of carbohydrate content, it's a comparison of the GI of an entire meal of mixed macronutrients.
Additionally, how do you explain these findings where the highest satiety food item is a high GI carbohydrate?
https://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf
Yes, as you've said before and I addressed recently. Do you know what high GI means?
I went back a few pages and you still have not addressed the satiety Index study where the white potato which is a high G.I. carbohydrate showed the greatest satiation.
How does this factor into your claims?
If carbohydrates make people hungry, and if meals with higher glycemic indicies cause hunger, why is the highest satiety food item a high glycemic carbohydrate?
I'm not sure to be honest. I don't do much research on high satiety foods, so I can't answer that.
But are you to tell me that Lyle then doesn't know what he's talking about? Cause if so I think I can finally understand why I'm getting such resistance.0 -
Prepare your jokes and what not now, I'll leave this thread as of now. If anyone wants to discuss this in more depth, message me.0
-
Here's the thing Travis- you are 100% entitled to your own opinion. You are entitled to interpret studies any way you wish. Just because you believe something fact, doesn't make it a fact though. You'll need to show evidence to support your claims if your going to make irresponsible statements like this. People will obviously challenge your theories because they differ greatly from facts. The problem is, there's newcomers who come on this site not knowing anything yet. When people spread misinformation, it does a disservice to the newcomers that are trying to learn.4
-
TravisGM92 wrote: »Prepare your jokes and what not now, I'll leave this thread as of now. If anyone wants to discuss this in more depth, message me.
Kind of hard to discuss anything in depth with someone who doesn't understand certain words have certain meanings and refers to non-scientific, peer reviewed journals as a source for their claims.3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Sooo... saying it's the devil and just as addictive as cocaine is not to tell them not to eat it?
How much cocaine should I take per day?
I wouldn't advise taking any cocaine. Or sugar. Or MSG. All of which are edible, none of which are required for a healthy diet.
Remember when you asked us where you advised anyone not to eat sugar? You know that thing you swear you aren't doing? THAT, just then, was you advising people not to eat sugar. I'm done, because if you claim those words don't mean to not eat sugar you don't understand the English language.
It's like clockwork. I couldn't blink before he back peddled.
So what is everyone making for dinner tonight? I was thinking pasta with that really good ciabatta bread. Nmnmnm
I'm in the mood for dessert. Like breakfast for dinner, but only dessert. Lots and lots.
After this thread, who isn't? I can't wait until you come back after having dessert for dinner, in your calorie range, and bragging about your 1 lb loss this week.2 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
You said, I quoted you not someone else, you saidTravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar.
I'm pretty certain anyone who reads the English language is going to read that exactly as being an "advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever" to not eat sugar. Maybe you weren't aware that's how the English language works.
Yes, I did say that. I didn't deny saying that, I said I said it in response to someone else. Learn to read that.
Secondly, what I meant by that (which I explained later) was that it's not required in any diet to be healthy. That doesn't mean DON'T eat sugar.
But there is no normal interpretation where "sugar is the devil"="sugar is not required in the diet." Especially since cutting out all sugar would mean cutting out lots of foods that probably SHOULD be in your diet, and which have positive correlations with good health, like vegetables.
Here's an example in case you are having trouble grasping this.
Poster: I hate fish, so how can I eat it.
Me: I love fish, but the fact is it's not necessary, don't eat it if you don't like it. (Pretty much what I actually said.)
Your version of what I said: Fish is the devil!
Now, do you really think those are the same thing?
How about this? Poster: I hate kale, how can I eat it. You: Kale is the devil! (Now, granted, that does get said probably, but it does not mean "kale is not necessary in your diet" (which is of course true), but "kale tastes bad.") Maybe you should have gone with that; it might have been a more believable way to backpedal.
And no, it's not true that carbs, in general, cause more hunger. Carbs vary greatly in how satiating they are ON AVERAGE, carbs on average are more satiating than fat to the average person (see all the qualifications), and --most importantly -- people vary as to what works for them and also as to whether hunger is even a problem. OP said NOTHING to suggest that hunger is a problem unless you are trying to suggest that she shouldn't have been eating all of her calories.3 -
msalicia116 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Sooo... saying it's the devil and just as addictive as cocaine is not to tell them not to eat it?
How much cocaine should I take per day?
I wouldn't advise taking any cocaine. Or sugar. Or MSG. All of which are edible, none of which are required for a healthy diet.
Remember when you asked us where you advised anyone not to eat sugar? You know that thing you swear you aren't doing? THAT, just then, was you advising people not to eat sugar. I'm done, because if you claim those words don't mean to not eat sugar you don't understand the English language.
It's like clockwork. I couldn't blink before he back peddled.
So what is everyone making for dinner tonight? I was thinking pasta with that really good ciabatta bread. Nmnmnm
I have lots of corn from a local farm that I need to eat up, so definitely some corn on the cob!2 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »Prepare your jokes and what not now, I'll leave this thread as of now.
You said you were doing that back on page one:TravisGM92 wrote: »I'll leave this discussion cause obviously I'm being attacked... not sure why.
3 -
msalicia116 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Sooo... saying it's the devil and just as addictive as cocaine is not to tell them not to eat it?
How much cocaine should I take per day?
I wouldn't advise taking any cocaine. Or sugar. Or MSG. All of which are edible, none of which are required for a healthy diet.
Remember when you asked us where you advised anyone not to eat sugar? You know that thing you swear you aren't doing? THAT, just then, was you advising people not to eat sugar. I'm done, because if you claim those words don't mean to not eat sugar you don't understand the English language.
It's like clockwork. I couldn't blink before he back peddled.
So what is everyone making for dinner tonight? I was thinking pasta with that really good ciabatta bread. Nmnmnm
I'm in the mood for dessert. Like breakfast for dinner, but only dessert. Lots and lots.
After this thread, who isn't? I can't wait until you come back after having dessert for dinner, in your calorie range, and bragging about your 1 lb loss this week.
It'll be more like 1.5, but who's counting?
Oh, that would be me. 2 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »cerise_noir 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.
Mercola? Authority (not) nutrition? Nope nope nope nope. Come on now....
Sugar is not evil. Sugar does not prevent weight loss. And BS it is as addictive as cocaine. I've worked with addicts throughout the years and I fond this comparison absolutely appalling, hurtful, disgusting....
My almost 100lbs weight loss proves that sugar does not cause weight gain or addiction to carbs. Who starting that crock of crap anyway? I ate 'clean' vegetarian for years and I was at my worst weight. My blood tests were awful, so yeah....
1. You are taking it out of context.
2. The point of saying sugar has shown in studies to be addictive (whether or not more than drugs), is an important point.
3. Mercola as an authority? Maybe not. But the study is real.
4. There is another study I cited that showed that eating carbs made people want to eat more carbs. Sugar are carbs...
The other study you posted matched calorie and macronutrient intake. They were comparing the GI of the entire meal, not the amount of carbohydrate.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract
"Design: With the use of a randomized, blinded, crossover design, 12 overweight or obese men aged 18–35 y consumed high- and low-GI meals controlled for calories, macronutrients, and palatability on 2 occasions. The primary outcome was cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity, which was assessed by using arterial spin-labeling functional magnetic resonance imaging 4 h after test meals. We hypothesized that brain activity would be greater after the high-GI meal in prespecified regions involved in eating behavior, reward, and craving. "
As shown in
Table 1, both test meals were composed
of similar ingredients and had the same macronutrient distri-
bution (ProNutra Software, version 3.3.0.10; Viocare Technol-
ogies Inc).
You cannot claim that the differences in hunger were related to the number of carbohydrates as that wasn't what was tested.
Yes, that's true. Do you know what contributes to high glycemic numbers? High blood sugar numbers. Do you know what increases blood sugar numbers? Carbohydrates.
As the study itself says: Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal.
Hmmm....
The study you linked does not support your claim, period.
It is NOT a measure of carbohydrate content, it's a comparison of the GI of an entire meal of mixed macronutrients.
Additionally, how do you explain these findings where the highest satiety food item is a high GI carbohydrate?
https://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf
Yes, as you've said before and I addressed recently. Do you know what high GI means?
I went back a few pages and you still have not addressed the satiety Index study where the white potato which is a high G.I. carbohydrate showed the greatest satiation.
How does this factor into your claims?
If carbohydrates make people hungry, and if meals with higher glycemic indicies cause hunger, why is the highest satiety food item a high glycemic carbohydrate?
I'm not sure to be honest. I don't do much research on high satiety foods, so I can't answer that.
But are you to tell me that Lyle then doesn't know what he's talking about? Cause if so I think I can finally understand why I'm getting such resistance.
Lyle is one of the best in the business. So is Alan Aragon, so is Krieger and Helms.
I don't disagree with Lyle or the article you shared from his site.
I disagree with your blanket application of his statement along with your linking of studies that don't even remotely reinforce the claims you're making.
The truth is, for some people they DO experience greater satiety on a low carb diet.
Mostly due to increased protein but there may also be an added effect to reducing carbohydrates to ketogenic levels.
The problem I have here is that research reports averages and until you dig you won't see the individual variability at play.
Satiety is very important but human behavior is complex, and the highest satiety diet will not always be the diet with maximal adherence or optimal performance.
In fact I'd love it if people would link Lyle's material more often, but I'd wager he would rip you a new one if he were in this thread.
10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Sooo... saying it's the devil and just as addictive as cocaine is not to tell them not to eat it?
How much cocaine should I take per day?
I wouldn't advise taking any cocaine. Or sugar. Or MSG. All of which are edible, none of which are required for a healthy diet.
Remember when you asked us where you advised anyone not to eat sugar? You know that thing you swear you aren't doing? THAT, just then, was you advising people not to eat sugar. I'm done, because if you claim those words don't mean to not eat sugar you don't understand the English language.
It's like clockwork. I couldn't blink before he back peddled.
So what is everyone making for dinner tonight? I was thinking pasta with that really good ciabatta bread. Nmnmnm
I have lots of corn from a local farm that I need to eat up, so definitely some corn on the cob!
I haven't eaten enough corn this summer. Time to play catch up I think!
1 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »cerise_noir 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.
Mercola? Authority (not) nutrition? Nope nope nope nope. Come on now....
Sugar is not evil. Sugar does not prevent weight loss. And BS it is as addictive as cocaine. I've worked with addicts throughout the years and I fond this comparison absolutely appalling, hurtful, disgusting....
My almost 100lbs weight loss proves that sugar does not cause weight gain or addiction to carbs. Who starting that crock of crap anyway? I ate 'clean' vegetarian for years and I was at my worst weight. My blood tests were awful, so yeah....
1. You are taking it out of context.
2. The point of saying sugar has shown in studies to be addictive (whether or not more than drugs), is an important point.
3. Mercola as an authority? Maybe not. But the study is real.
4. There is another study I cited that showed that eating carbs made people want to eat more carbs. Sugar are carbs...
The other study you posted matched calorie and macronutrient intake. They were comparing the GI of the entire meal, not the amount of carbohydrate.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract
"Design: With the use of a randomized, blinded, crossover design, 12 overweight or obese men aged 18–35 y consumed high- and low-GI meals controlled for calories, macronutrients, and palatability on 2 occasions. The primary outcome was cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity, which was assessed by using arterial spin-labeling functional magnetic resonance imaging 4 h after test meals. We hypothesized that brain activity would be greater after the high-GI meal in prespecified regions involved in eating behavior, reward, and craving. "
As shown in
Table 1, both test meals were composed
of similar ingredients and had the same macronutrient distri-
bution (ProNutra Software, version 3.3.0.10; Viocare Technol-
ogies Inc).
You cannot claim that the differences in hunger were related to the number of carbohydrates as that wasn't what was tested.
Yes, that's true. Do you know what contributes to high glycemic numbers? High blood sugar numbers. Do you know what increases blood sugar numbers? Carbohydrates.
As the study itself says: Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal.
Hmmm....
The study you linked does not support your claim, period.
It is NOT a measure of carbohydrate content, it's a comparison of the GI of an entire meal of mixed macronutrients.
Additionally, how do you explain these findings where the highest satiety food item is a high GI carbohydrate?
https://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf
Yes, as you've said before and I addressed recently. Do you know what high GI means?
I went back a few pages and you still have not addressed the satiety Index study where the white potato which is a high G.I. carbohydrate showed the greatest satiation.
How does this factor into your claims?
If carbohydrates make people hungry, and if meals with higher glycemic indicies cause hunger, why is the highest satiety food item a high glycemic carbohydrate?
I'm not sure to be honest. I don't do much research on high satiety foods, so I can't answer that.
But are you to tell me that Lyle then doesn't know what he's talking about? Cause if so I think I can finally understand why I'm getting such resistance.
What's ironic is that alot of the veterans here are fans of Lyle McDonald, including some of the people you are arguing with. Here's the thing - things like scientific studies and articles by respected pros still require interpretation and critical thinking. And what people are trying to tell you is that you are interpreting this stuff incorrectly. They aren't ignoring the links you have provided; they are saying they don't mean what you think they mean and don't prove what you think they prove.
Sugar may make a person hungrier when eaten on it's own (like 400 cals of Twizzlers) but when sugar is combined with other macros or with fiber (like 400 cals of sweet potato or 400 cals of ice cream) most people would find those very filling (I sure would).
Oh, and yes there are studies that show that sugar "lights up" the same part of the brain as cocaine, but so does petting puppies. And sex. And a bunch of other things. Just because something is pleasurable and you want more of it doesn't make it addictive.7 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »kickassketo wrote: »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.
Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.
You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.
What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.
Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.
A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.
People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!TravisGM92 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »kickassketo wrote: »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.
Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.
You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.
What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.
Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.
A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.
People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!
Quit saying people are blind to science. It's exhausting, and you're reaching. It reminds me of a tribe in Africa that says to the women that their brains are smaller and "it's only science!". Because if you say it like that, it must be true! Eye roll.
Following you derail this whole thread is astounding. You have back peddled so much, it's obvious you have a problem being wrong. I followed Atkins for 10 years, because of people like you providing opinions posing them as "science". 10 years! Literally afraid to eat carbs. I never once felt like a normal person that entire time. And it has taken me years to reprogram myself that it's CICO, and I can eat anything that fits into my calories. And I did gain in HFLC. Why? Because it was over my TDEE.
Your links are inconclusive. They don't specifically point to carbs or sugar, and using a food group with other macros doesn't single out carbs or sugar causing you to eat more or become addicted. I eat less now that I have a balanced diet. I feel more satiated because all those needs and wants are met. It's more satiating for me. Not to mention I don't have disordered eating product of some obsession over a gram of carbs or sugar touching my lips. See how that works. I said "for me". So when you want to preach about hunger and "knowing what the culprit is", have the decency to say that's what works for you! Instead of brainwashing people with nonscience/nonsense.
The science is easy without you contorting it. Protein and fat has satiating qualities, to increase your protein/fat reduces the risk of eating more calories than you need. Less calories= deficit= weight loss. Don't tell people not to eat carbs or sugar, or that it will increase their hunger because that is not true. Recommend increasing protein and fat. At least then we could move on from this train wreck.
So you're just gonna disregard my sources and support? Haha alrighty... if you want more techniques to losing fat other than counting calories which seems like most people on this thread are, let me know.
And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...
And I just have to add.. I think it's funny that I'm providing links and sources to an idea that carbs COULD increase hunger. Lyle McDonald, a very respected, scientific source, knows just as well as I do that it's a heavily debated topic. Meaning, there's currently evidence for both sides. You say "don't tell people that carbs increase hunger cause it's not true" show me the evidence. Show me the science and I'll stop posting on here.
Oh, and by the way, personal experience doesn't count.
You do understand that when a researcher says "could" it does not mean "does". It means there is a possibility, but there is not data or sufficient solid data from good studies to support that claim. "Could" does not mean, "a good probability of".
5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
You said, I quoted you not someone else, you saidTravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar.
I'm pretty certain anyone who reads the English language is going to read that exactly as being an "advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever" to not eat sugar. Maybe you weren't aware that's how the English language works.
Yes, I did say that. I didn't deny saying that, I said I said it in response to someone else. Learn to read that.
Secondly, what I meant by that (which I explained later) was that it's not required in any diet to be healthy. That doesn't mean DON'T eat sugar.
Lastly, you're just jumping to conclusions that I haven't said. I've clarified all of my intentions on here multiple times yet people such as yourself think I said "don't eat sugar" or "it's not true that carbs cause more hunger"-- yet I've provided both clarification AND sources to back each. Back peddling? I'M back peddling? HA! Do you know what that means?
I've been clarifying other peoples issues again and again because apparently people like yourself can't/don't read the previous posts that I've already explained. I'M simply responding to people's accusations. Everyone keeps back peddling MY claims.
Are you trying to say that I made you say that sugar is the devil?
<baffling thread is baffling>
The sugar made you do it.3 -
cerise_noir wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
You said, I quoted you not someone else, you saidTravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar.
I'm pretty certain anyone who reads the English language is going to read that exactly as being an "advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever" to not eat sugar. Maybe you weren't aware that's how the English language works.
Yes, I did say that. I didn't deny saying that, I said I said it in response to someone else. Learn to read that.
Secondly, what I meant by that (which I explained later) was that it's not required in any diet to be healthy. That doesn't mean DON'T eat sugar.
Lastly, you're just jumping to conclusions that I haven't said. I've clarified all of my intentions on here multiple times yet people such as yourself think I said "don't eat sugar" or "it's not true that carbs cause more hunger"-- yet I've provided both clarification AND sources to back each. Back peddling? I'M back peddling? HA! Do you know what that means?
I've been clarifying other peoples issues again and again because apparently people like yourself can't/don't read the previous posts that I've already explained. I'M simply responding to people's accusations. Everyone keeps back peddling MY claims.
Are you trying to say that I made you say that sugar is the devil?
<baffling thread is baffling>
The sugar made you do it.
She does get all insanely hopped up on it. :laugh:1 -
2 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130626153922.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+sciencedaily/top_news/top_health+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News+--+Top+Health)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/27/science/la-sci-high-carbohydrate-hunger-20130627
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/carbs-make-hungrier-11828.html
As well as Lyle all have studies cited and interpretations of those studies. And yet I'm to believe they are all wrong? Or at least pulling my leg? ALL of their interpretations are wrong?
So in that study you keep linking, do you see where it says they controlled for calories and macronutrients? Because that means carbs were equal in both meals.
Oh and for everyone who didn't bother to check the authors, it's made by Ludwig and friends, so...5 -
TravisGM92 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Oh really?TravisGM92 wrote: »And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...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.)TravisGM92 wrote: »Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:
Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?
Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!
And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
Hey, this is interesting. Can you please post some peer reviewed studies on this?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions