why does sugar make us fat
Replies
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers because of how fast it is metabolized.
That's funny, because I've been losing weight with a calorie deficit while still eating sugar. Sometimes I eat ice cream before bed. Am I a special snowflake?
The answer is no. My body functions in the same way all bodies do.
Overall calorie deficit is what matters. Yes, sugar is great for a burst of energy before a workout. But even if you don't "burn" it right away (i.e., eat ice cream before bed), you're not going to gain weight or store fat if you're in an overall deficit. It all evens out if calories are controlled.
You are missing my point though. Yes, you are in the minority considering most people are overweight and not doing anything about it. If you say "calorie deficit overall," what do you think makes up that "overall"?
In your case, you ate more, and then ate less, and it balanced out into a deficit. That is a sum, and the whole is made up of the sum.
I am not going to defend my claim to people who don't care to understand it yet can just attack it. Think scientifically, please.
I'm not sure what you mean here. How is using the concept of CI<CO not "thinking scientifically."? It's physics.
You're majoring in the minors here. None of what you are claiming trumps calories. Someone who is overweight but not doing anything about it got that way in the first place because he or she ate too many calories and gained weight. Someone who is maintaining a healthy weight is doing so because they are eating the correct number of calories. Someone who is losing weight is doing so because they have created a calorie deficit in one way or another.
Are there nuances to how different nutrients are metabolized and used by the body? Sure. But none of it matters more than energy balance. And those nuances are not important to the average Joe or June who is trying to lose weight for their health.6 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers.
So does fatty beef or high levels of oils...so?
Fats have actually been shown to take longer to digest and increase that time between meals due to the non-release of grehlin, if the nutrition is appropriate. When combined with carbs (i.e. hamburgers and hotdogs), the effects are reduced.
Lipids cannot be utilized by the red blood cells for energy. They require glucose. Therefore, the body must do more to convert them into ready energy the cells can use. This process slows the digestive process, which slows down hunger levels.
I can go 8-10 hours on eggs and butter, whereas I couldn't even come close to that eating cereal.
And I go 16 hours fasted every day on 400 grams of carbs per day. A lot of that being sugar. Satiety varies by person.
Do you eat one or two meals per day? I am genuinely curious. What do you eat to go 16 hours fasted?
I eat 1 full meal around 7 and dessert after usually. I graze and snack from 12pm till dinner. Roughly 4000 calories at the moment. I try to get around 175-200 grams of protein and 75-100 grams of fat and a minimum of 250 grams of carbs. I fill in the rest with whatever.
If you are snacking, you are not fasting. I am not sure what you mean by "fasted." Also, you are bulking, correct?
I eat between 12 and 8pm. That leaves a 16 hour window.
And I'm not really bulking, no. At least not purposefully.
Everyone fasts around and within sleep times :-) regardless of diet. I am talking about waking hours. I have breakfast at 8, and I don't have to eat again until 4 or 5.
Who is asleep for 16 hours a day? Are the hours from 12 noon to 8 in the evening not "waking hours"?I do not become hungry or get the shakes. No snack, no drink. While I consume about 1000 calories, I burn just as much in that span. The same thing cannot be said for sleeping hours, however 2-3 of the hours before sleep are satiated by dinner, and the 2-3 hours after sleep (adjust for sleep times) are moderated by the fact that the digestive system mostly slows down during sleep, and takes a while to get back started again.
I'm glad you found a way to create a calorie deficit that is sustainable and helpful for you. This is not going to be a satisfying or sustainable way to eat for everyone.
Also, are you saying that you only consume 1,000 calories per day? Your wording is confusing here.5 -
Low fat or low carb, if you lost weight CI<CO...2
-
For the record, I haven't lost weight overall since I have been on here, but I haven't focused on it enough. I enjoy learning about nutrition as a hobby, and like discussing it in a non-negative matter. I am a bit of a contrarian but I also enjoy learning new things. I generally don't respond to irrational people (you know, those ones that just say "thats stupid," or "just no."). They provide nothing to the conversation. I may be wrong, but I am not going to insult you for being wrong as well. I will simply provide my take. Generally, though, my takes are not taken well. And I am okay with that. You just don't understand things like I do, and that is not right or wrong...it just is. But the more we can provide logical information, the more people understand. We can't call it bad information simply because it is more complicated than the stereotypical phrases and the common person doesn't understand it. Every moment, we are losing and gaining weight. Energy storage and exhaustion is fluid, not staged. What we eat can dictate (to certain levels) how much we eat. Overweight people struggle more with this than ideal weight people, so the more they can be helped, the better it is for society as a whole.
That is all I am trying to do here.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers.
So does fatty beef or high levels of oils...so?
Fats have actually been shown to take longer to digest and increase that time between meals due to the non-release of grehlin, if the nutrition is appropriate. When combined with carbs (i.e. hamburgers and hotdogs), the effects are reduced.
Lipids cannot be utilized by the red blood cells for energy. They require glucose. Therefore, the body must do more to convert them into ready energy the cells can use. This process slows the digestive process, which slows down hunger levels.
I can go 8-10 hours on eggs and butter, whereas I couldn't even come close to that eating cereal.
And I go 16 hours fasted every day on 400 grams of carbs per day. A lot of that being sugar. Satiety varies by person.
Do you eat one or two meals per day? I am genuinely curious. What do you eat to go 16 hours fasted?
I eat 1 full meal around 7 and dessert after usually. I graze and snack from 12pm till dinner. Roughly 4000 calories at the moment. I try to get around 175-200 grams of protein and 75-100 grams of fat and a minimum of 250 grams of carbs. I fill in the rest with whatever.
If you are snacking, you are not fasting. I am not sure what you mean by "fasted." Also, you are bulking, correct?
I eat between 12 and 8pm. That leaves a 16 hour window.
And I'm not really bulking, no. At least not purposefully.
Everyone fasts around and within sleep times :-) regardless of diet. I am talking about waking hours. I have breakfast at 8, and I don't have to eat again until 4 or 5. I do not become hungry or get the shakes. No snack, no drink. While I consume about 1000 calories, I burn just as much in that span. The same thing cannot be said for sleeping hours, however 2-3 of the hours before sleep are satiated by dinner, and the 2-3 hours after sleep (adjust for sleep times) are moderated by the fact that the digestive system mostly slows down during sleep, and takes a while to get back started again.
edited: shut down was too extreme. It does slow down though.
I go to bed at 11 or 12 and wake up at 6am. That makes me awake and fasted for 9-10 hours (16 total).
And frankly, I could add in more hours as I don't eat continuously between 12 and 8, and could probably go from 12:15 to 6:15 pretty easily if I wanted to eat 3000 calories at dinner time, but I don't. I have a lot of calories to get in though per day. It takes a lot of fuel for this machine...5 -
oy vey. Have a nice day, folks.0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers.
So does fatty beef or high levels of oils...so?
Fats have actually been shown to take longer to digest and increase that time between meals due to the non-release of grehlin, if the nutrition is appropriate. When combined with carbs (i.e. hamburgers and hotdogs), the effects are reduced.
Lipids cannot be utilized by the red blood cells for energy. They require glucose. Therefore, the body must do more to convert them into ready energy the cells can use. This process slows the digestive process, which slows down hunger levels.
I can go 8-10 hours on eggs and butter, whereas I couldn't even come close to that eating cereal.
And I go 16 hours fasted every day on 400 grams of carbs per day. A lot of that being sugar. Satiety varies by person.
Do you eat one or two meals per day? I am genuinely curious. What do you eat to go 16 hours fasted?
I eat 1 full meal around 7 and dessert after usually. I graze and snack from 12pm till dinner. Roughly 4000 calories at the moment. I try to get around 175-200 grams of protein and 75-100 grams of fat and a minimum of 250 grams of carbs. I fill in the rest with whatever.
If you are snacking, you are not fasting. I am not sure what you mean by "fasted." Also, you are bulking, correct?
I eat between 12 and 8pm. That leaves a 16 hour window.
And I'm not really bulking, no. At least not purposefully.
Everyone fasts around and within sleep times :-) regardless of diet. I am talking about waking hours. I have breakfast at 8, and I don't have to eat again until 4 or 5. I do not become hungry or get the shakes. No snack, no drink. While I consume about 1000 calories, I burn just as much in that span. The same thing cannot be said for sleeping hours, however 2-3 of the hours before sleep are satiated by dinner, and the 2-3 hours after sleep (adjust for sleep times) are moderated by the fact that the digestive system mostly slows down during sleep, and takes a while to get back started again.
edited: shut down was too extreme. It does slow down though.
I go to bed at 11 or 12 and wake up at 6am. That makes me awake and fasted for 9-10 hours (16 total).
And frankly, I could add in more hours as I don't eat continuously between 12 and 8, and could probably go from 12:15 to 6:15 pretty easily if I wanted to eat 3000 calories at dinner time, but I don't. I have a lot of calories to get in though per day. It takes a lot of fuel for this machine...
5 -
Facts getting in the way of feelers again...8
-
For the record, I haven't lost weight overall since I have been on here, but I haven't focused on it enough. I enjoy learning about nutrition as a hobby, and like discussing it in a non-negative matter. I am a bit of a contrarian but I also enjoy learning new things. I generally don't respond to irrational people (you know, those ones that just say "thats stupid," or "just no."). They provide nothing to the conversation. I may be wrong, but I am not going to insult you for being wrong as well. I will simply provide my take. Generally, though, my takes are not taken well. And I am okay with that. You just don't understand things like I do, and that is not right or wrong...it just is. But the more we can provide logical information, the more people understand. We can't call it bad information simply because it is more complicated than the stereotypical phrases and the common person doesn't understand it. Every moment, we are losing and gaining weight. Energy storage and exhaustion is fluid, not staged. What we eat can dictate (to certain levels) how much we eat. Overweight people struggle more with this than ideal weight people, so the more they can be helped, the better it is for society as a whole.
That is all I am trying to do here.
I find statements like the bolded to be quite arrogant.
Also, for you to say that you have not lost weight, but that all of us who have successfully lost weight are doing it wrong, is also pretty arrogant and slightly offensive.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I'm just pointing it out so that you can think about how the words you type are read and interpreted by other people and maybe phrase it a bit better. We can't read your intentions, we can only read the words that you post.
7 -
No...imajollyroger wrote: »I reduce foods, especially processed foods, to their macro carb content because that is what is being scientifically proven to cause the obesity epidemic, not the fat.
Yes, the fat was taken out and the calories were put right back in the form of sugar. People psychologically saw "low fat" and proceeded to overeat. You'll see the same effect with low carb, give it time.imajollyroger wrote: »"We" took the fat out of foods in the 80s, made everything low fat/high carb and obesity, heart disease, and diabetes have skyrocketed--globally.
CICO...
3 -
I've only dropped 80lbs, have 170lbs of lean mass and walk around at 7%. What do I know?13
-
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.
1 -
If you eat more calories than your body needs, they convert to fat. Not just sugar.9
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers.
So does fatty beef or high levels of oils...so?
Fats have actually been shown to take longer to digest and increase that time between meals due to the non-release of grehlin, if the nutrition is appropriate. When combined with carbs (i.e. hamburgers and hotdogs), the effects are reduced.
Lipids cannot be utilized by the red blood cells for energy. They require glucose. Therefore, the body must do more to convert them into ready energy the cells can use. This process slows the digestive process, which slows down hunger levels.
I can go 8-10 hours on eggs and butter, whereas I couldn't even come close to that eating cereal.
And I go 16 hours fasted every day on 400 grams of carbs per day. A lot of that being sugar. Satiety varies by person.
Do you eat one or two meals per day? I am genuinely curious. What do you eat to go 16 hours fasted?
I eat 1 full meal around 7 and dessert after usually. I graze and snack from 12pm till dinner. Roughly 4000 calories at the moment. I try to get around 175-200 grams of protein and 75-100 grams of fat and a minimum of 250 grams of carbs. I fill in the rest with whatever.
If you are snacking, you are not fasting. I am not sure what you mean by "fasted." Also, you are bulking, correct?
I eat between 12 and 8pm. That leaves a 16 hour window.
And I'm not really bulking, no. At least not purposefully.
Everyone fasts around and within sleep times :-) regardless of diet.
Of course, but when the IFers talk about fasting, and 20-4 or 16-8 or whatever, they include the sleep time in the fast and usually mean skipping a meal in the morning or evening or otherwise compressing eating hours.
I'm not sure why fasting (or IF) is currently a topic? Obviously it would be hard to fast for 16 waking hours and sleep, say, 7, and get in enough calories in that one hour, although some probably do.I have breakfast at 8, and I don't have to eat again until 4 or 5. I do not become hungry or get the shakes.
Why would you? I eat at 6, 12, and 9 or 10 most days, and generally don't get the shakes or whatever between lunch and dinner (and would find it really weird if I did). I don't do IF, since my longest time without eating is 9-10 hours, although I've thought of trying it (I can skip breakfast without an issue, eating dinner earlier might be a trick). The form of IF that currently intrigues me more is 5:2. (But this is not about sugar, is it?)
Not sure why you do 1000 calories, but perhaps you have your reasons.4 -
Oh, looking back, we are talking about IF because of the claim that butter and eggs will hold one for 8-10 hours. Not me. I usually have no problem adhering to any eating schedule if I eat reasonably balanced meals, but just eggs and butter and I'd be hungry before lunch.
Eggs work well for me when combined with vegetables and some additional protein -- I love a vegetable omelet with some low fat cottage cheese. But lately I've been obsessed with smoothies (today's was yogurt, protein powder, strawberries, spaghetti squash, a green pepper, and kale -- believe it or not, delicious!) which is quite high sugar, and I skipped lunch (scheduling issues) without being hungry. Satiety is individual.2 -
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.
There is no queue for your nutrients. Your body will always burn both, and when you're resting even mostly fat, not sugar.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
Extra glucose is rarely if ever turned to fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1036598110 -
Eggs and butter would hold me for about an hour.
Now a hard boiled egg and a banana with a cup of tea and half a cup of milk in it? I'm good for hours on that. I have it every day.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
There is no queue for your nutrients. Your body will always burn both, and when you're resting even mostly fat, not sugar.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
Extra glucose is rarely if ever turned to fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
I believe the satiety factor of protein and fat quells the hunger pains. So for the CICO people, this is why there a calorie deficit, most people are good with a few choice meals that are higher in fat. However because less of it gives more satiety, then people eat less.
One Sunday, I had nothing to eat just some coffee and gatotrade for 18 hours (went to bed at 10p Saturday night, having ate all my allowed calories for the day, got up at 10a,) weighed myself as I do each morning and evening , drank a coffee and then helped my mother move her things out of storage. Had two bottles of Gatorade. We had one helper besides me and my mother...lots of lifting and stairs. Got weak then ate some protein, then dinner that night. Come Monday morning the scale read I dropped a little over 3 lbs. So, I'm gonna see if I can replicate this kind of drop. I'll report back.0 -
Christ. I posted on here what feels like minutes ago, came back to see if there was another post yet and there have been like 3 pages of posts. Nothing like sugar to get the post-spam flowing huh.
I'd need to up the sugar in my diet just to keep up with this thread.11 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
There is no queue for your nutrients. Your body will always burn both, and when you're resting even mostly fat, not sugar.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
Extra glucose is rarely if ever turned to fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
I believe the satiety factor of protein and fat quells the hunger pains. So for the CICO people, this is why there a calorie deficit, most people are good with a few choice meals that are higher in fat. However because less of it gives more satiety, then people eat less.
On Sunday, I had nothing to eat just some coffee and gatotrade for 18 hours (went to be Saturday night at 10, got up at 10a,) weight myself, drank a coffee and helped my mother move her things out of storage. Had two bottles of Gatorade. We had one helper besides me and my...lots of lifting and stairs. Monday morning the scale read I dropped a little over 3 lbs. So, I'm gonna see if I can replicate this kind of drop. I'll report back.
This is not universally true. Satiety is different for everyone.4 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
Watch the first part of this and see what they are eating;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WskSufX-_wA
Much of their food in Tonga is from New Zealand and mostly overly fatty rejected scraps that they won't eat.
Now did people in the US screw up with the Snackwells? YES! Absolutely, a low fat diet was supposed to be an increase in vegetables not an increase in refined sugars but corporations exploit what they can for the bottom line, unfortunately.2 -
TheAncientMariner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »TheAncientMariner wrote: »I don't think carbs/sugars make you fat on their own. I do know that my body does not do well with high carb intakes, especially the ones suggested by MFP. My sedentary lifestyle (do to work) simply doesn't give me a lot of opportunities to burn away that excess. Sure, it'll be converted to glycogen and stored in my muscle tissue, but everyday consumption won't allow it to be used and so it will be converted into adipose tissue. I think that I'm at a place where I burn exactly what I consume, but am not in a deficit. I tried low calorie, low calorie with running, and nothing worked but a low carb lifestyle. I don't believe we were built to consume carbs in the quantities in which we do or that are recommended for us. How else can you explain how quickly low carb/sugar lifestyles lower LDL, raise HDL, and is so efficient at removing fat directly.
It takes a lot to convert carbs to fat in reality but it does cause more fat to be stored as fat just as taking in too much fat causes more fat to be stored. The fact is, we aren't designed to eat as much as we tend to because we are in a food rich environment that has foods with that were modified throughout our history to be more calorically dense. If you look at high carb diets you see the exact same thing as low carb diets, a fast drop in LDL, raise in HDL and increase in insulin insensitivity and drop in fat stores. So how you get their just doesn't matter but if you prefer low carb then go for it but that doesn't mean it's special.
The problem is that low carb diets do not spike insulin. Carbs do. There is a vast difference between the two. I'm not just low-carbing, I'm moving my body into a state of ketosis, specifically. So there is something special about it, but if I over eat, I'm still subject to weight gain. The high fat content of my diet keeps me satiated and my liver makes the ketones that the rest of my body uses for energy. Excess is disposed of. The high fat also allows me to eat at a caloric deficit because I'm rarely hungry and even if I am, the cravings aren't nearly as strong as they were on the high carb diets so I eat less almost by default. It's a win/win all the way around. Yes, it's still calories in vs/calories out, but I much rather my body be conditioned for using ketones and fat for ALL of it's energy needs versus carbs. For the way I do things, it makes a hell of a lot of sense and the way my body has responded seems like magic. Way more energy, more mental focus, even my little knee issue seems to have disappeared. Again, I'm not speaking for everyone, just myself. So yes, it is special, but only if you do it the right way. Honestly, I even eat healthier because I'm more aware of things like vitamins, leafy greens, etc.
No, insulin spikes are not an issue unless you have a specific problem. Low fat diets have been successful in treating metobolic issues such as insulin insentivity. Now, so does ketogenic diets so it isn't that keto is special but if you find it to be better than by all means, your body and your diet so go with that. The only issue I have is when people say that it's the only way. It's A way and good luck to you.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christ. I posted on here what feels like minutes ago, came back to see if there was another post yet and there have been like 3 pages of posts. Nothing like sugar to get the post-spam flowing huh.
I'd need to up the sugar in my diet just to keep up with this thread.
Really! I am out this isn't a debate LOL.
ETA- I don't even like added sugar or sweets, I am mostly a savory girl and that's how I got fat.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers.
So does fatty beef or high levels of oils...so?
Fats have actually been shown to take longer to digest and increase that time between meals due to the non-release of grehlin, if the nutrition is appropriate. When combined with carbs (i.e. hamburgers and hotdogs), the effects are reduced.
Lipids cannot be utilized by the red blood cells for energy. They require glucose. Therefore, the body must do more to convert them into ready energy the cells can use. This process slows the digestive process, which slows down hunger levels.
I can go 8-10 hours on eggs and butter, whereas I couldn't even come close to that eating cereal.
Carbs are also less likely to convert to fat. It's an inefficient process and requires more energy to do so. Overfeed studies on de novo lipogensis commonly show this. IIRC, only 10 to 25% of carbs have the ability to convert. Consequently, since fats are lipid, they easily convert to body fat.
As an aside too, my normal weekend breakfast is 5 eggs, onions, peppers, 3oz of ham, spinach, 1/4 cup of cheese, salsa and a side of bacon. I am hungry within 2 hours normally. Now if I replace the bacon with roasted red potatoes, I am golden for at least 3 or 4 hours. Not much longer, but still better.1 -
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.2 -
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.
Since you posted about it, I'll answer you: on these boards, "sugar" is often used on here as a synonym for "sweet treat" or "dessert." When people say they're cutting sugar out of their diet, they mean things like cookies, ice cream, and candy. Of course, these are combinations of carbs (not just sugar) and fat, but they're being reduced to "sugar," so that's what I assume people mean when they don't add qualifiers. I do find cookies, ice cream, and some candy filling.
Aaron mentioned specific types of sugar that connote other consumables to me. I don't add table sugar to my tea, it's a waste of calories to me. On the rare occasions I do want sweet tea, I use calorie-free sweetener. Calories from table sugar in a drink don't help to fill me up. HCFS is often added to processed foods to enhance taste, and it's the main component of caloric soft drinks (in the US, at least). Once again, the same level of fullness can be accomplished without the added calories from HCFS. So this really boils down to what "sugar" means to you.3 -
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.23
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions