Whats the BEST Tea for Weight Loss?
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can also find articles that the earth is flat and Bigfoot is real. Just because I can find something on the internet doesn't make it true.quiksylver296 wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can also find articles that the earth is flat and Bigfoot is real. Just because I can find something on the internet doesn't make it true.
I did the next best thing to google and went to pubmed (since the PP telling you to google seems to lazy to provide good sources)
Just one review (behind a pay wall, I'll have to log in from universtity tomorrow to read the whole thing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25091794
From the conclusion: From this review, evidence for an association between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and obesity risk is inconsistent when adjustment for energy balance is made.
I was actually on PubMed trying to find that one, and apparently wasn't using the right search parameters.
Thanks!
Search terms: sugar obesity
Filters: Review, Human
(my profs would have been very disappointed if I couldn't manage to find something like that with minimal efforts)5 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can also find articles that the earth is flat and Bigfoot is real. Just because I can find something on the internet doesn't make it true.quiksylver296 wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can also find articles that the earth is flat and Bigfoot is real. Just because I can find something on the internet doesn't make it true.
I did the next best thing to google and went to pubmed (since the PP telling you to google seems to lazy to provide good sources)
Just one review (behind a pay wall, I'll have to log in from universtity tomorrow to read the whole thing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25091794
From the conclusion: From this review, evidence for an association between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and obesity risk is inconsistent when adjustment for energy balance is made.
I was actually on PubMed trying to find that one, and apparently wasn't using the right search parameters.
Thanks!
Search terms: sugar obesity
Filters: Review, Human
(my profs would have been very disappointed if I couldn't manage to find something like that with minimal efforts)
Doh. Sugar + obesity. Of course, I didn't try that.
My educational history is not scientific.5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can also find articles that the earth is flat and Bigfoot is real. Just because I can find something on the internet doesn't make it true.quiksylver296 wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can also find articles that the earth is flat and Bigfoot is real. Just because I can find something on the internet doesn't make it true.
I did the next best thing to google and went to pubmed (since the PP telling you to google seems to lazy to provide good sources)
Just one review (behind a pay wall, I'll have to log in from universtity tomorrow to read the whole thing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25091794
From the conclusion: From this review, evidence for an association between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and obesity risk is inconsistent when adjustment for energy balance is made.
I was actually on PubMed trying to find that one, and apparently wasn't using the right search parameters.
Thanks!
Search terms: sugar obesity
Filters: Review, Human
(my profs would have been very disappointed if I couldn't manage to find something like that with minimal efforts)
Doh. Sugar + obesity. Of course, I didn't try that.
Sometimes it's the easiest ones that get the best results
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Technically you could look for a fairly caffeinated one to help your metabolism slightly, but overall, like has been said many times before - none will actively help you.
If you're short any nutrients, you can try to find one that will supplement that. Just don't add sugar / sugar replacement in it.
Why not?
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Sugar has 16 calories per teaspoon, so roughly 50 extra calories if you like your tea extra sweet. That's like half an apple's worth. I don't really see how that would be detrimental to weight loss if the calories are accounted for.
They are empty calories. At least the apple is giving you other vitamins & nutrients you need. There are also several studies on sugar making you more hungry.
Then again, there's a lot of weight loss "science" out there that contradicts each other, so to each their own.
They're not really empty. They have carbs. Carbs = fuel. By that reasoning, oil is empty calories too, and is higher in calories to boot. Even then, that has no bearing on weight loss.
What type of oil are you referring too?
Any pure oil really.
That's the nutrients in 900 calories of olive oil.
Are the fatty acids you get from oil not more beneficial to the body than just mere fuel?10 -
Look at that, it worked!
9 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Technically you could look for a fairly caffeinated one to help your metabolism slightly, but overall, like has been said many times before - none will actively help you.
If you're short any nutrients, you can try to find one that will supplement that. Just don't add sugar / sugar replacement in it.
Why not?
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Sugar has 16 calories per teaspoon, so roughly 50 extra calories if you like your tea extra sweet. That's like half an apple's worth. I don't really see how that would be detrimental to weight loss if the calories are accounted for.
They are empty calories. At least the apple is giving you other vitamins & nutrients you need. There are also several studies on sugar making you more hungry.
Then again, there's a lot of weight loss "science" out there that contradicts each other, so to each their own.
They're not really empty. They have carbs. Carbs = fuel. By that reasoning, oil is empty calories too, and is higher in calories to boot. Even then, that has no bearing on weight loss.
What type of oil are you referring too?
Any pure oil really.
That's the nutrients in 900 calories of olive oil.
Are the fatty acids you get from oil not more beneficial to the body than just mere fuel?
The essential ones? Do you know how much essential fatty acids your body actually needs? It's less than 20 grams per day. Anything above that...8 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Technically you could look for a fairly caffeinated one to help your metabolism slightly, but overall, like has been said many times before - none will actively help you.
If you're short any nutrients, you can try to find one that will supplement that. Just don't add sugar / sugar replacement in it.
Why not?
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Sugar has 16 calories per teaspoon, so roughly 50 extra calories if you like your tea extra sweet. That's like half an apple's worth. I don't really see how that would be detrimental to weight loss if the calories are accounted for.
They are empty calories. At least the apple is giving you other vitamins & nutrients you need. There are also several studies on sugar making you more hungry.
Then again, there's a lot of weight loss "science" out there that contradicts each other, so to each their own.
They're not really empty. They have carbs. Carbs = fuel. By that reasoning, oil is empty calories too, and is higher in calories to boot. Even then, that has no bearing on weight loss.
What type of oil are you referring too?
Any pure oil really.
That's the nutrients in 900 calories of olive oil.
Are the fatty acids you get from oil not more beneficial to the body than just mere fuel?
The essential ones? Do you know how much essential fatty acids your body actually needs? It's less than 20 grams per day. Anything above that...
And to dish out ye olde "but there's better things to use your calories on", fish contains essential fatty acids and has better nutrients across the board than oil.14 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Technically you could look for a fairly caffeinated one to help your metabolism slightly, but overall, like has been said many times before - none will actively help you.
If you're short any nutrients, you can try to find one that will supplement that. Just don't add sugar / sugar replacement in it.
Why not?
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Sugar has 16 calories per teaspoon, so roughly 50 extra calories if you like your tea extra sweet. That's like half an apple's worth. I don't really see how that would be detrimental to weight loss if the calories are accounted for.
They are empty calories. At least the apple is giving you other vitamins & nutrients you need. There are also several studies on sugar making you more hungry.
Then again, there's a lot of weight loss "science" out there that contradicts each other, so to each their own.
They're not really empty. They have carbs. Carbs = fuel. By that reasoning, oil is empty calories too, and is higher in calories to boot. Even then, that has no bearing on weight loss.
What type of oil are you referring too?
Any pure oil really.
That's the nutrients in 900 calories of olive oil.
Are the fatty acids you get from oil not more beneficial to the body than just mere fuel?
The essential ones? Do you know how much essential fatty acids your body actually needs? It's less than 20 grams per day. Anything above that...
And to dish out ye olde "but there's better things to use your calories on", fish contains essential fatty acids and has better nutrients across the board than oil.
That was exactly my point. If we're going purely by nutrition, no one would be using oil. They would be getting their fat elsewhere. People use oil for the same reasons they use sugar: it makes things taste good.17 -
KTaurusW0516 wrote: »Green Tea? Sage? Peppermint?
Having fun yet :-) As far as I can tell tea does not aid in weight loss, I drink passion fruit ice tea daily, I make a large pitcher and add sugar, I just add half of the sugar it calls for, 4 teaspoons instead of 8 to 64 oz. I account for this small amount of sugar and would rather have sugar then artificial sweetener as they make me feel odd. If it keeps you off the high calories sugar drinks I say enjoy tea, just account for it. BTW... I don't drink the whole pitcher every day.3 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can try Google and find many articles about how the pyramids in Egypt were built by reptile aliens. "I can find it on Google" is a terrible standard for judging whether or not something is factual.15 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.17 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e749215 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).21 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
14 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
14 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Um, that's because the reduction in sugar intake reduced their caloric intake to the point where they were in a deficit. Do the exact thing with bread, pasta, oils, fat and the results would be identical.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.18 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
"Associated with". Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Also, did you notice the 'ad libitum' part about diet? Which means that they were freely eating and calories weren't equated? Also, did you notice the sentence immediately after your quoted portion, which you omitted?:Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight (0.04 kg, −0.04 to 0.13).
That means if calories were held equivalent, there was no change in body weight when other carbohydrates were exchanged with dietary sugars. And that finding was associated with a high confidence interval and a low 'p' value.
Correlation vs. causation. I see a lot of fat people exercising. So does that mean that exercising makes people fat? Or is the correlation between the two an indicator of something else?
In other news, the per capita consumption of beef is "associated with" deaths caused by lightning:
The cost of 16 oz. of potato chips is "associated with" deaths by falling out of wheelchairs:
The per capita consumption of cheese is "associated with" total revenue generated by golf courses:
None of those correlations have anything whatsoever to do with causation. There's a difference.13 -
Best quote ever-Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.16
-
WinoGelato wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
Is broccoli a better choice for sweetening my tea? Is a ribeye steak? Is avocado?
The point that you are missing is that many people that you’re arguing with have made the choice to limit sugary drinks or other calorie dense substances in favor of other choices. It doesn’t make sugar bad or inherently a bad choice or something else inherently a better choice. Why I choose to just drink straight herbal tea is because I would rather spend my CALORIES on other things like wine, but I still enjoy tea too. The good news is that in the context of a balanced, calorie appropriate diet, I can have both and meet my goals because it’s the CALORIES that matter.
15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
Is broccoli a better choice for sweetening my tea? Is a ribeye steak? Is avocado?
The point that you are missing is that many people that you’re arguing with have made the choice to limit sugary drinks or other calorie dense substances in favor of other choices. It doesn’t make sugar bad or inherently a bad choice or something else inherently a better choice. Why I choose to just drink straight herbal tea is because I would rather spend my CALORIES on other things like wine, but I still enjoy tea too. The good news is that in the context of a balanced, calorie appropriate diet, I can have both and meet my goals because it’s the CALORIES that matter.
Exactly. I use artificial sweeteners in my drinks (if I use any sweetener at all) because I'd rather spend those calories on FOOD. Not because sugar is the devil or has any magical fattening properties.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
There is not a thing wrong with adding sugar (16 calories per teaspoon, honey has 22 calories per teaspoon) to anything you desire to consume.
For weight loss, consume less calories than your body burns, for maintaining weight, consume equal amount of calories your body burns, for gaining weight, consume more calories than your body burns.
Sugar, as all foods, in moderation.
6 -
missysippy930 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
There is not a thing wrong with adding sugar (16 calories per teaspoon, honey has 22 calories per teaspoon) to anything you desire to consume.
For weight loss, consume less calories than your body burns, for maintaining weight, consume equal amount of calories your body burns, for gaining weight, consume more calories than your body burns.
Sugar, as all foods, in moderation.
Well, duh.
I never said that it would make you magically gain weight. I said there are teas out there that will make you not need sugar in it, and that those calories are likely spent better elsewhere.
I understand calories in calories out. That's part of my suggestion.11 -
I drink and eat more sugar probably compared to a lot of others on this site and I still lost weight. I eat a LOT of carbs,still lose weight. if I cut down on those things then I create an even bigger deficit if I dont replace those calories with something else. I lost weight because of a deficit. while I do drink unsweetened tea a majority of the time. I do consume a lot of sugar/carbs. have had no issues losing. I got fat eating more fruits and veggies than I did"sugary" foods(added sugar and processed sugars). I can eat at least a part of my weight in fruit no jokes. I gained weight because I was eating in a SURPLUS of calories. I wasnt fat before then I was a healthy weight,I just became sedentary and started eating more than my body needed.5
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Technically you could look for a fairly caffeinated one to help your metabolism slightly, but overall, like has been said many times before - none will actively help you.
If you're short any nutrients, you can try to find one that will supplement that. Just don't add sugar / sugar replacement in it.
Why not?
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Unless it takes you over your calorie goals, sugar will not hurt weight loss.
I have no idea why you think artificial sweeteners would affect weight at all.9 -
missysippy930 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
There is not a thing wrong with adding sugar (16 calories per teaspoon, honey has 22 calories per teaspoon) to anything you desire to consume.
For weight loss, consume less calories than your body burns, for maintaining weight, consume equal amount of calories your body burns, for gaining weight, consume more calories than your body burns.
Sugar, as all foods, in moderation.
Well, duh.
I never said that it would make you magically gain weight. I said there are teas out there that will make you not need sugar in it, and that those calories are likely spent better elsewhere.
I understand calories in calories out. That's part of my suggestion.
But again, in the context of a calorie deficit in a diet that already hits macro and micro nutrient goals - you don’t get extra credit for eating more broccoli instead of that 20 cal tsp of sugar. That is all we have been saying, you keep saying that there are better choices, but life is not about clear black and white, good and bad decisions. What should I spend that 20 calories on, since there must be a better choice? What is the definitively superior choose to a spoonful of sugar?3 -
KTaurusW0516 wrote: »Green Tea? Sage? Peppermint?
@KTaurusW0516 If you're still around, drink whatever tea you like. I enjoy a cup or three of peppermint or rooibos tea in the evening to help keep the munchies at bay. It won't create weight loss, but it does satisfy some of the hand-to-mouth habits I have at night.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Technically you could look for a fairly caffeinated one to help your metabolism slightly, but overall, like has been said many times before - none will actively help you.
If you're short any nutrients, you can try to find one that will supplement that. Just don't add sugar / sugar replacement in it.
Why not?
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Unless it takes you over your calorie goals, sugar will not hurt weight loss.
I have no idea why you think artificial sweeteners would affect weight at all.
Well apparently they turn your poop purple so maybe the shock of seeing that would send you running? That’s the only thing I can come up with after this crazy circular logic thread.5 -
I'm not sure OP is coming back to this gong show, but if she's still reading, hopefully she's getting a giggle.
Tea doesn't help with weight loss. If you enjoy it, drink it, and log it. If you want sugar or artificial sweeteners in it, use it, and log it. If you're still reading this thread, have a glass of wine, and log it.
Bottom line. Life is too short to be drinking/eating stuff you don't enjoy. Find what works for you. There is no need to stress over everything, and there is no need to be labeling food/drink/sugar as good or bad. We have enough to worry about without worrying about these things. Just log it.7 -
This is even on the site you're already on - I notice on here a lot of people ask for proof, then dismiss it as false. I suspect you're less likely do to this on this site.
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/
LOL. The MyFitnessPal blog is one of the worst, most unreliable resources ever. It's no better than Dr. Oz or the articles on the cover of a woman's magazine.
Sugar only makes you gain weight if it causes you to consume more calories than you expend. You gain weight via a caloric surplus, period. There's no food which otherwise magically causes weight gain.
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
"Associated with". Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Also, did you notice the 'ad libitum' part about diet? Which means that they were freely eating and calories weren't equated? Also, did you notice the sentence immediately after your quoted portion, which you omitted?:Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight (0.04 kg, −0.04 to 0.13).
That means if calories were held equivalent, there was no change in body weight when other carbohydrates were exchanged with dietary sugars. And that finding was associated with a high confidence interval and a low 'p' value.
Correlation vs. causation. I see a lot of fat people exercising. So does that mean that exercising makes people fat? Or is the correlation between the two an indicator of something else?
In other news, the per capita consumption of beef is "associated with" deaths caused by lightning:
The cost of 16 oz. of potato chips is "associated with" deaths by falling out of wheelchairs:
The per capita consumption of cheese is "associated with" total revenue generated by golf courses:
None of those correlations have anything whatsoever to do with causation. There's a difference.
So if we reduce the number of wheelchair deaths, the cost of potato chips will go down?
ETA: And if there's someone I don't like, but want their death to look like an "accident" I just need to feed them lots of beef? Asking this one for a friend.10
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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