A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Options
Replies
-
I totally relate to what you are saying and have found similar!0
-
Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.0
-
Please tell me that you were at least lifting heavy, or that you had a very physically active job? Or that you are 6 ft tall? Give me SOMETHING, please!
I have no idea which poster you were specifically addressing here, but I just want to say 'yes'.
This person is doing one or all of these things to lose weight at 2200 calories a day.0 -
3 kg in 1 week??? hard to believe. I only want to lose 5-6 kg and it feels like I need forever for it.0
-
While I agree with you, this topic has been hotly debated ad nauseum on mfp and any other nutrition related forum.
Even the so called experts do not agree. This being the case, I believe the weight/health conscious world falls into one of 2 camps. Those that are sensitive to sugars and starches and those who are not.
You know well which one of these groups you fall into and if you don't, eventually you will. This is because it will either work for you or not.
If limiting starches and sugars does not affect you, it's a bunch of broscience....and since this is your experience, it's quite valid.
However, if you are unfortunate enough to fall into the camp of sugars and starches producing a whole host of problems resulting in serious imbalances, well, it just plain sucks. It also adds a lot of resentment for the folks who have no sugar/starch issues because it's as if this particular person's experience is invalid.
Bottom line is, even though sugars and starches are not for me, I surely wish that people would concede that both sides of the equation are valid. Once armed with the information it's up to you to you to figure out what will work for you.
My personal pov is that i wish i took seriously all the warnings the OP was talking about instead of calling bs because it sounded like a conspiracy theory.0 -
:yawn: how many threads and in how many sections of the forum are you going to post this nonsense?0
-
Guys I'm not saying the proof is with me - it's in the links I left. Checkout Professor Lutwig's videos - he will explain the biochemistry of how fructose is directed to the liver to be metabolized and this results in fat storage whereas glucose can be metabolized by any cells / organs in the body.
Watch Sugar: The bitter truth on You Tube please before commenting.
Sugar (and simple carbs like bread) is driving insulin is driving fat storage is the message. We are not fat because we are eating more, we are eating more because we are getting fat. The paradigm needs to be flipped.
Google Gary Taubes - an award winning science journalist who's followed the complete history of the fat versus sugar studies going back over 100 years.
Checkout Pure, White and Deadly by Professor John Yudkin
Regards and best wishes to all0 -
Bottom line is, if you are losing weight at a rate you are happy with, by eating sugar, then fine. Keep doing what you are doing. It is working for you.
BUT, if you are struggling to lose weight. Having food cravings and having a hard time staying under your calorie goal, then try cutting back on the sugar and simple white carbs and see if it helps.
For people that are insulin resistant, (and there are more out there than you realize), it is very helpful to cut down on sugar and starchy carbs.
Find out how your body functions best.0 -
I think everyone is different. I think there are a LOT of people who are very sensitive to sugar. I am. And I believe that all calories are NOT equal across the board. Some people don't seem to be affected, while some are greatly affected. Do I have scientific proof and/or am I a scientist? No. But I am hypoglycemic and get "addicted" to sugar if I just let myself go unchecked, then I get in a really bad place where I will blackout and have a lot of other health issues. No, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients. Just because you're not affected at age 30 doesn't mean by 55 you won't see some detrimental effects.
States she isn't a scientist and has no scientific proof... proceeds to give science-like argument!
All in good fun, but your post is wrong on so many levels. Your hypoglycemia and lack of self control around sweets is a health issue that is specific to you. It is by no means a scientific commentary on how the human body works. I eat sugar on a daily basis. I am very macro and micro nutrient efficient. I have not gained weight.
See? This illustrates what I mean...one person's experience does not invalidate another's.
Sheesh.0 -
Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.
Ignoring? Low carb/low sugar has been all the rage for years now. The same red herring that fat was in the past.0 -
Guys I'm not saying the proof is with me - it's in the links I left. Checkout Professor Lutwig's videos - he will explain the biochemistry of how fructose is directed to the liver to be metabolized and this results in fat storage whereas glucose can be metabolized by any cells / organs in the body.
Watch Sugar: The bitter truth on You Tube please before commenting.
Sugar (and simple carbs like bread) is driving insulin is driving fat storage is the message. We are not fat because we are eating more, we are eating more because we are getting fat. The paradigm needs to be flipped.
Google Gary Taubes - an award winning science journalist who's followed the complete history of the fat versus sugar studies going back over 100 years.
Checkout Pure, White and Deadly by Professor John Yudkin
Regards and best wishes to all
LOLstig and Taubes lmao
Uh oh, protein is also insulinogenic, so maybe that's driving insulin and is driving fat storage!0 -
i lost all of my weight (so far) while living in Colorado...
...therefore, living in Colorado is the only effective way to lose weight.
irrefutable conclusion is irrefutable!
:huh:
as for you, sweet Burro, sugar makes you drunk.THE DRUNKEN BURRO (*kitten*)
One of my big weaknesses is animals. At creation God placed man in dominium over animals and with it came the ability to domesticate them for his use. With this command came the unsaid responsibility for showing respect, kindness and understanding for "dumb animals". This also created for man a responsibility for their care.
We all are familiar with the great Clydesdale draft horses of the Anheuser Busch Company. The company allows procurement of these horses when they are retired. Although large, they are, for the most part, very gentle,extremely well disciplined and trained animals. They make excellent breeding animals and good mothers. Tennessee walking horse mares, if not too high spirited, also make good mothers.
Due to his small size, mating the burros creates some breeding problems, but where there is a will, there is a way. The grand cannon burros make excellent farm watch dog type animals if you spend time and effort to teach him who is boss. This must be done very carefully. Their natural defense is biting and kicking, an art that has been highly developed and practiced intensely with deadly accuracy. These animals will eat every Canadian thistle down to the roots and pull the roots out of the ground. This weed has selenium, a trace mineral that is important to the animal's diet. Burros can kick a wild dog or coyote "to the promised land" if the burros catch them in a field where they watch the cattle, and calves.
The burros have one other trait that can get them into serious trouble and that trait is curiosity. They will investigate anything that they do not understand. A friend of mine wanted to borrow JACK to court his mares in north Alabama. Jack loves apples, peaches, sugar lumps, and anything that smells like sugar. My friend has a large farm and raises walking horses. He has a horse training area on a major Alabama highway and has rented the property to a convenience store with an attached bakery. This enterprise has a dumpster with doors in both ends. One end is adjacent to the pasture fence and Jack learned how get into the dumpster by using both front feet. Raw yeast dough, apples and other fruit created a good recipe. Jack now had all that it took, given his biological makeup, to become a miniature brewery. Intoxication set in rapidly and he was soon lying on the ground, "Drunk as a Skunk".
On Saturday morning the call came that Jack was sick and dying. He was foaming at the mouth and his tongue was hanging out of his mouth and flat on the ground. I immediately called the vet to see if it would be possible to save the critter. He had been an excellent stud and I did not want to lose this animal since he had sired several good colts. By Sunday morning he was up and sober. As I drove up to the pasture I saw him there, head first in the dumpster and thirty minutes later he was drunk again. Needless to say this ended his career in alcoholism because we moved the dumpster.
Jack has sired beautiful Clydesdale mules with white feathers on all four feet. Jack's Walkers (from Tennessee walking mares) are some of the most sure-footed mules you could hope to ride.
When we drink into intoxication we must remember the story of Lot and his daughters and their incest and the tragic results of this intoxication. Genesis 19; 30-38
Sir William Dorris
Order British Empire
happy hour works better for me.
0 -
I only avoid sugar (and alcohol and complex starches, pretty much all the good stuff
because it has drastically reduced inflammation I have suffered from. I know that is my solution, it works. But if I didn't have problems, believe me, I would enjoy everything in moderation! For weight loss, calories in calories out. For health, it might benefit others to exclude sugar. It might be a problem for you. I do what works for my body and keep my head down, eyes on my own paper! 0 -
I think everyone is different. I think there are a LOT of people who are very sensitive to sugar. I am. And I believe that all calories are NOT equal across the board. Some people don't seem to be affected, while some are greatly affected. Do I have scientific proof and/or am I a scientist? No. But I am hypoglycemic and get "addicted" to sugar if I just let myself go unchecked, then I get in a really bad place where I will blackout and have a lot of other health issues. No, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients. Just because you're not affected at age 30 doesn't mean by 55 you won't see some detrimental effects.
States she isn't a scientist and has no scientific proof... proceeds to give science-like argument!
All in good fun, but your post is wrong on so many levels. Your hypoglycemia and lack of self control around sweets is a health issue that is specific to you. It is by no means a scientific commentary on how the human body works. I eat sugar on a daily basis. I am very macro and micro nutrient efficient. I have not gained weight.
I also have hypoglycemia. It's not that I have a lack of controll around sugar, but when my sugar gets low, I do crave the stuff. Like "I would kill you for that chocolate bar you just chewed up" craving. That being said, I have learned to somewhat controll my hypoblycemia by eating a banana or a greek yogurt with some pb2 when I feel this attack coming on. Just saying, that being hypoglycemic DOES make your mind think you body NEEDS sugar. If my sugar level drops, I get really *itchy, see spots, get dizzy, pass out. Usually in that order. You know it's bad when your daughter tells you, "mom, eat something like now!" Luckily I have found a lifestyle change that is working for me, not everyone is that lucky. And I really said all of that just to say I would love touchin your muscles
0 -
o, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients.
This made me spit laugh
:noway::happy: :laugh: :laugh:
In for the funny gifs!0 -
Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.
Ignoring? Low carb/low sugar has been all the rage for years now. The same red herring that fat was in the past.
yep!
Diet Pepsi debuted in 1964.
Diet Coke debuted in 1982.
the food/beverage industry has long been aware that it is profitable to offer low sugar/low carb products.0 -
Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.
Ignoring? Low carb/low sugar has been all the rage for years now. The same red herring that fat was in the past.
yep!
Diet Pepsi debuted in 1964.
Diet Coke debuted in 1982.
the food/beverage industry has long been aware that it is profitable to offer low sugar/low carb products.
Wow! I didn't realize that Diet Pepsi was first. And that it took so long for Coke to introduce a competitive product. Kind of surprising considering that Coke dominates Pepsi in the market place.0 -
Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.
I'd say for over 30years people have been looking for something they can restrict while still eating way to much, without gaining weight. We've known the whole time eating too much makes you fat.
Now that it's not feasible to blame fat, sugar is in the crosshairs. We're out of macros so look out for "molybdenum free" in the next decade.
Check out my profile. The guy in my "before" pics doesn't eat sugar, and rarely eats processed foods. The guy in my current pic eats ice cream almost every day, pasta, bread, maple syrup, that stuff McDonald's refers to as "frozen dessert treat", whatever.0 -
While I agree with you, this topic has been hotly debated ad nauseum on mfp and any other nutrition related forum.
Even the so called experts do not agree. This being the case, I believe the weight/health conscious world falls into one of 2 camps. Those that are sensitive to sugars and starches and those who are not.
You know well which one of these groups you fall into and if you don't, eventually you will. This is because it will either work for you or not.
If limiting starches and sugars does not affect you, it's a bunch of broscience....and since this is your experience, it's quite valid.
However, if you are unfortunate enough to fall into the camp of sugars and starches producing a whole host of problems resulting in serious imbalances, well, it just plain sucks. It also adds a lot of resentment for the folks who have no sugar/starch issues because it's as if this particular person's experience is invalid.
Bottom line is, even though sugars and starches are not for me, I surely wish that people would concede that both sides of the equation are valid. Once armed with the information it's up to you to you to figure out what will work for you.
My personal pov is that i wish i took seriously all the warnings the OP was talking about instead of calling bs because it sounded like a conspiracy theory.
Pretty much was going to say thing. So much people get up in arms because "Well, this wasn't *my* experience, therefore yours must be invalid!", and then find a bunch of links backing up their preferred "diets." It's not hard to find a bunch of support (or, "support") for your choice because there's SO MUCH out there, on all sides of the equation.
I realize the whole point of these forums is to discuss, sometimes debate (although it frequently isn't a proper debate, but rather snarky or sometimes downright rude replies). But at what point do people just give up, and say, eff it all, I'll just do my own thing, and you do your own thing?
Unless you enjoy the arguing, then by all means, have at it!0 -
bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions