why does sugar make us fat
Options
Replies
-
queenliz99 wrote: »@lemurcat12 I always care what you write. Always. Just throwing that out there. No more "Likes" from me.
Heh, I like this post, but I would. ;-)goldthistime wrote: »I like the message that we shouldn't vilify sugar, just moderate our consumption. But IMO, the message should include an acknowledgement that sugar does have special properties (like instant energy and not filling) that are magnified when consumed in excess.
Yeah, I agree with this. I tend to assume that no one consumes sugar on its own (other than when running a race or on a long bike ride, maybe!), so would say that for many (but not all) sugar + fat tends not to be satiating, for whatever reason. I mean, a spoonful of sugar or a gel won't fill me up, but goodness knows I'm never, ever going to consume enough of them to gain weight.
But then I recall that there are some things (soda, mainly, but also some candies) that are mostly sugar and although I never really consumed many of them some do. I still doubt that they are doing so with the intent of filling up, though, so need to understand that a coke or Starburst aren't going to be satiating, but maybe I'm wrong here?0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
That's just because we can't flag mods for abuse or spam.
2 -
Had to do it
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
Are you complaining that Aaron got lots of likes and you didn't? You just can't look at those, it's maddening. I mean, sometimes a post of mine gets lots and of course I get warm fuzzies if I see it, but often a post I worked much harder on and think was much better gets nothing, and (as you thought here) someone else saying exactly the same thing gets a bunch. Or some post saying something really inane in disagreement gets a bunch of likes (I do assume it's a friend thing then, of course, or just supporting a "side" if a debate is going on). ;-) I actually don't see why new positive reactions keep getting added, as it seems to me they just end up making this place feel like a bit of a popularity contest, but eh, no one cares what I think.
Anyway, I DON'T like things based on people being friends, and I've even liked posts by psulemon plenty of times, despite him being a mod and all (not sucking up, just stating a fact, given prior posts). Probably the majority of my likes are to posters who mostly ignore me! ;-) (Although I'm pretty liberal with positive reactions, I think.)
What I do notice is that I like when I'm engaged in a conversation and sometimes skim over posts when I'm catching up and just don't notice them (or think to like them), so it can totally be timing. I certainly notice (and get frustrated by) the fact that many people don't read anything but the first and most recent posts, so ignore super intelligent (kidding) contributions I've made or post entirely unaware of the conversation, so that posts get skipped doesn't surprise me.
For the record, here I didn't strongly agree with either of the posts in question so didn't "like" either. (Didn't dislike them, though!)
The reason: although I do think satiety is an important issue, I don't think that's why people overeat sweet treats (and I also think the reason sweet treats aren't satiating for most of us has as much to do with the fat as the sugar, as well as the refined flour in many cases). My pet theory for why people often overeat sweet treats is that they are hedonic eating -- not eating due to hunger at all. Therefore, they add calories ON TOP OF the calories that they would otherwise eat anyway, at meals. This is why cutting back if you eat a lot of sweets is often a good way to cut calories (but when I did this I cut fat as much as sugar, and I cut fat in other places too, so I wouldn't agree at all that fat is more filling than carbs). It's also why if you learn to eat sweets in moderation it's not hard to do -- that's again because it's not about satiety, as you should be eating well enough at meals to be satiated, IMO, if one has a sensible diet.
If one were hungry, there are tons of foods to choose, including foods that people know will fill them up. If someone chooses a cookie and then eats 10, that's not because they were eating for hunger. They are choosing the cookie because they like cookies and eating so many for various other reasons (lack of structure, bad habits, boredom, pleasure/hedonism, on and on). NOT because the hunger is making them -- that just makes no sense to me.
I was amused mostly. Same message I thought. And dear lemurcat, (no sarcasm, I like your posting style), I unfortunately have to rush off so I can't respond in full. Skimming (sorry), I'm not particularly hung up on Likes. I think we all know the feeling of having our posts ignored (the Internet is filled with people screaming into the void). I get something out of it just by composing my thoughts sometimes, I'm hoping you do to.
I dearly want to consider and discuss "hedonic eating" but it will have to wait.
@psulemon I admit to liking posts that I actually disagree with factually on occasion, because I feel like the "right" message has been clearly communicated already (no need for me to pile on), and that the user might be feeling bashed. Especially when they are new. Sometimes I wade in and try to say something somewhat supportive, but I don't have time or energy to do it often. I like that bad info gets quashed, I just don't like to think that people are sometimes trampled in the process.
2 -
goldthistime wrote: »I was amused mostly.
I figured, but it was something I could relate to, so that's why the overly long response. ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
Are you complaining that Aaron got lots of likes and you didn't? You just can't look at those, it's maddening. I mean, sometimes a post of mine gets lots and of course I get warm fuzzies if I see it, but often a post I worked much harder on and think was much better gets nothing, and (as you thought here) someone else saying exactly the same thing gets a bunch. Or some post saying something really inane in disagreement gets a bunch of likes (I do assume it's a friend thing then, of course, or just supporting a "side" if a debate is going on). ;-) I actually don't see why new positive reactions keep getting added, as it seems to me they just end up making this place feel like a bit of a popularity contest, but eh, no one cares what I think.
Anyway, I DON'T like things based on people being friends, and I've even liked posts by psulemon plenty of times, despite him being a mod and all (not sucking up, just stating a fact, given prior posts). Probably the majority of my likes are to posters who mostly ignore me! ;-) (Although I'm pretty liberal with positive reactions, I think.)
What I do notice is that I like when I'm engaged in a conversation and sometimes skim over posts when I'm catching up and just don't notice them (or think to like them), so it can totally be timing. I certainly notice (and get frustrated by) the fact that many people don't read anything but the first and most recent posts, so ignore super intelligent (kidding) contributions I've made or post entirely unaware of the conversation, so that posts get skipped doesn't surprise me.
For the record, here I didn't strongly agree with either of the posts in question so didn't "like" either. (Didn't dislike them, though!)
The reason: although I do think satiety is an important issue, I don't think that's why people overeat sweet treats (and I also think the reason sweet treats aren't satiating for most of us has as much to do with the fat as the sugar, as well as the refined flour in many cases). My pet theory for why people often overeat sweet treats is that they are hedonic eating -- not eating due to hunger at all. Therefore, they add calories ON TOP OF the calories that they would otherwise eat anyway, at meals. This is why cutting back if you eat a lot of sweets is often a good way to cut calories (but when I did this I cut fat as much as sugar, and I cut fat in other places too, so I wouldn't agree at all that fat is more filling than carbs). It's also why if you learn to eat sweets in moderation it's not hard to do -- that's again because it's not about satiety, as you should be eating well enough at meals to be satiated, IMO, if one has a sensible diet.
If one were hungry, there are tons of foods to choose, including foods that people know will fill them up. If someone chooses a cookie and then eats 10, that's not because they were eating for hunger. They are choosing the cookie because they like cookies and eating so many for various other reasons (lack of structure, bad habits, boredom, pleasure/hedonism, on and on). NOT because the hunger is making them -- that just makes no sense to me.
I couldn't agree more. I even think there was a study done with chocolate that supports this line of thought. I'm migrainey and in a morning fog right now, so the particulars of it are beyond any attempt to search it out at the moment.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
That's just because we can't flag mods for abuse or spam.
If we allowed that, most of my post would be poofed. I apparently make a lot of people angry.. I don't get it.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »@lemurcat12 I always care what you write. Always. Just throwing that out there. No more "Likes" from me.
Heh, I like this post, but I would. ;-)goldthistime wrote: »I like the message that we shouldn't vilify sugar, just moderate our consumption. But IMO, the message should include an acknowledgement that sugar does have special properties (like instant energy and not filling) that are magnified when consumed in excess.
Yeah, I agree with this. I tend to assume that no one consumes sugar on its own (other than when running a race or on a long bike ride, maybe!), so would say that for many (but not all) sugar + fat tends not to be satiating, for whatever reason. I mean, a spoonful of sugar or a gel won't fill me up, but goodness knows I'm never, ever going to consume enough of them to gain weight.
But then I recall that there are some things (soda, mainly, but also some candies) that are mostly sugar and although I never really consumed many of them some do. I still doubt that they are doing so with the intent of filling up, though, so need to understand that a coke or Starburst aren't going to be satiating, but maybe I'm wrong here?
My comment on this is that I will often find a single hard candy (coffee or peppermint works best) to be enough to tide me over for an hour or so if I'm feeling peckish but don't want too many calories. I also find a regular Coke to be filling on the exceedingly rare occasions I drink one - to the point where I left food I had already logged and was more than hungry enough to eat on the plate.
For me, I think it may be a taste issue. Too much sweet kills my appetite, as does too oily/greasy. Since I don't usually wait until I'm super hungry to eat, killing my appetite also effectively shuts down hunger.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
@psulemon
So if it's so ridiculous why have it and why extend it with inspiring?
And why not open the log to everyone so you can see who is responding to your posts. Personally I've had posts with lots of reactions and I'm pretty sure I don't have that many friends
I am clearly just that awesome
:huh:13 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
@psulemon
So if it's so ridiculous why have it and why extend it with inspiring?
And why not open the log to everyone so you can see who is responding to your posts. Personally I've had posts with lots of reactions and I'm pretty sure I don't have that many friends
I am clearly just that awesome
:huh:
Anyone who uses the word, "migrainey" is awesome.
Feel better.
~Signed, Former Migraine Sufferer.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
@psulemon
So if it's so ridiculous why have it and why extend it with inspiring?
And why not open the log to everyone so you can see who is responding to your posts. Personally I've had posts with lots of reactions and I'm pretty sure I don't have that many friends
I am clearly just that awesome
:huh:
Anyone who uses the word, "migrainey" is awesome.
Feel better.
~Signed, Former Migraine Sufferer.
What choo talkin' 'bout Willis?0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
@psulemon
So if it's so ridiculous why have it and why extend it with inspiring?
And why not open the log to everyone so you can see who is responding to your posts. Personally I've had posts with lots of reactions and I'm pretty sure I don't have that many friends
I am clearly just that awesome
:huh:
Because MFP is social media, and:
5 -
cmriverside wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
@psulemon
So if it's so ridiculous why have it and why extend it with inspiring?
And why not open the log to everyone so you can see who is responding to your posts. Personally I've had posts with lots of reactions and I'm pretty sure I don't have that many friends
I am clearly just that awesome
:huh:
Anyone who uses the word, "migrainey" is awesome.
Feel better.
~Signed, Former Migraine Sufferer.
What choo talkin' 'bout Willis?
oops. It was Em.
Well, you're awesome anyway.0 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »I know what you mean OP!!!
Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.) Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.
so your claim that is if you are in a deficit of calories and eat sugar that your body will covert that to fat, even though one is in a calorie deficit?
can you please point me to the study that states that sugar trumps basic math and physics?4 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »I know what you mean OP!!!
Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.) Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.
so your claim that is if you are in a deficit of calories and eat sugar that your body will covert that to fat, even though one is in a calorie deficit?
can you please point me to the study that states that sugar trumps basic math and physics?
+1. If you are in a caloric deficit, there is no net fat storage regardless of substrate.
I'd also love to learn about the physiological mechanism whereby it's preferentially stored in the abdominal region. Because that's nothing I've ever seen validated by science.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »@lemurcat12 I always care what you write. Always. Just throwing that out there. No more "Likes" from me.
Heh, I like this post, but I would. ;-)goldthistime wrote: »I like the message that we shouldn't vilify sugar, just moderate our consumption. But IMO, the message should include an acknowledgement that sugar does have special properties (like instant energy and not filling) that are magnified when consumed in excess.
Yeah, I agree with this. I tend to assume that no one consumes sugar on its own (other than when running a race or on a long bike ride, maybe!), so would say that for many (but not all) sugar + fat tends not to be satiating, for whatever reason. I mean, a spoonful of sugar or a gel won't fill me up, but goodness knows I'm never, ever going to consume enough of them to gain weight.
But then I recall that there are some things (soda, mainly, but also some candies) that are mostly sugar and although I never really consumed many of them some do. I still doubt that they are doing so with the intent of filling up, though, so need to understand that a coke or Starburst aren't going to be satiating, but maybe I'm wrong here?
My comment on this is that I will often find a single hard candy (coffee or peppermint works best) to be enough to tide me over for an hour or so if I'm feeling peckish but don't want too many calories. I also find a regular Coke to be filling on the exceedingly rare occasions I drink one - to the point where I left food I had already logged and was more than hungry enough to eat on the plate.
For me, I think it may be a taste issue. Too much sweet kills my appetite, as does too oily/greasy. Since I don't usually wait until I'm super hungry to eat, killing my appetite also effectively shuts down hunger.
Yeah, I think that fits within the "most but not all" disclaimer above. I will believe anything about satiety, since I think it's really individual. For me, if I just want to eat something, a hard candy is a low cal way of doing it (and unlike with peanut M&Ms, which I have no control over if I start grazing -- same with chocolate covered almonds) I won't feel any desire to eat more. So for me it's not about hunger but having a little something (I do as well grabbing a coffee or tea).
Arguably this is sugar as a pick-me-up too, which I'd connect to feeling low energy/tired, not hungry. But I totally acknowledge that it could be different for you. I'm mostly challenging the notion that people overeat sweets because they are hungry and can't get full.
Weirdly, and maybe related to the "shuts down hunger" thing, I find that if I do want something sweet having a little cheese or (lower cal!) a pickle will usually suffice (not because either is perceived as filling for me -- cheese in particular I can overeat very easily if I let myself without feeling like I'm eating too much at all (except in my head, of course!)). ;-) A pickle also works great if I just want to eat something.1 -
You had to mention peanut M&M's.
WANT.
(I'm the same with them and chocolate covered almonds. Really, any iteration of chocolate and nuts.)3 -
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe insulin burns glucose. If you do not understand the fundamentals how can we follow the rest...mysteps2beauty wrote: »Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.)
How much sugar does the body need...?mysteps2beauty wrote: »Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
Ok...mysteps2beauty wrote: »So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
IF is great for those who can tolerate it...mysteps2beauty wrote: »I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
My guess is your only going to take heed the posts that agree with you...mysteps2beauty wrote: »Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.3 -
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe insulin burns glucose. If you do not understand the fundamentals how can we follow the rest...mysteps2beauty wrote: »Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.)
How much sugar does the body need...?mysteps2beauty wrote: »Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
Ok...mysteps2beauty wrote: »So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
IF is great for those who can tolerate it...mysteps2beauty wrote: »I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
My guess is your only going to take heed the posts that agree with you...mysteps2beauty wrote: »Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.
Essentially your pancreas releases insulin, which then activates your cells to open to allow glucose to enter, so it can then be converted into energy.0 -
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe insulin burns glucose. If you do not understand the fundamentals how can we follow the rest...mysteps2beauty wrote: »Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.)
How much sugar does the body need...?mysteps2beauty wrote: »Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
Ok...mysteps2beauty wrote: »So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
IF is great for those who can tolerate it...mysteps2beauty wrote: »I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
My guess is your only going to take heed the posts that agree with you...mysteps2beauty wrote: »Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.
Essentially your pancreas releases insulin, which then activates your cells to open to allow glucose to enter, so it can then be converted into energy.
Right, it transports for either usage or storage correct? But it does not burn it...1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions