Whats the BEST Tea for Weight Loss?
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Oh, rooibos! My favorite tea in existence after blackcurrant black tea.0 -
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.
Except for in your very first post in this thread that you kept on defending? Yeah you totally haven't said sugar in and of itself hinders weight loss.7 -
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.
Well actually, yes you did - or words to that effect.
Whether there are teas out there that will make you not need sugar in them is purely subjective personal taste.
I like my passionfruit and hibiscus tea with 1/2 teaspoon of honey (sugar variation, I know) - for me, it does need sweetener in it and those 20 or so calories aren't better spent elsewhere.
I have another 1690 calories to spend elsewhere.
4 -
Hey guys - minor clean-up occurred here. Please remember that respectful discussion may get heated, but does not include attacks or insults.
Thanks,
Em3 -
I view calories like a household budget. There are essentials just like house payment, utilities, insurance, etc. With calories these are basic nutrition like protein, fat, vitamins, minerals, etc. Once I pay for the essentials what is left is discretionary. Did I need to just buy the box set of Stargate SG-1? No, but I work hard, I am responsible, I can afford it, and I enjoyed the series. I have discretionary calories in my daily/weekly budget for anything I might want that I don't necessarily need. It helps keep eating and calorie counting from being this rigid experience. Part of transitioning from diet to lifestyle is managing your calorie budget wisely and effectively.
@cegal3 You have been dieting for about 6 weeks. You can't hold on to your early ideas of what dieting should be too firmly. You need to relax because depending on how much you have to lose you may be at this for a long time. Outside of medical restrictions trust that most things are going to be fine in moderation.12 -
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.
Hmmm, so let me get this straight. I can only eat cheese on the days my husband plays golf? Not sure I'm happy with that.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »I'm not sure OP is coming back to this gong show
I just snorted my sweetened tea. It's not hindering my weight loss, but it's not doing my sinuses much good.
5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »I'm not sure OP is coming back to this gong show
I just snorted my sweetened tea. It's not hindering my weight loss, but it's not doing my sinuses much good.
Uh oh. Da sugarz are going to feed the Candida in your sinuses. Check your pulse and get back to us.4 -
Again - going off a statement from a nutritionalist. Also, many people do not log the sugar that they consume.
I'll stop commenting on this since this is obviously a sore point for so many people.
I fail to see what logging has to do with food being good or bad unless you are suggesting that sugar is making people forget to log it.
You really have to spell things out around here, don't you?
Many studies indicate the sugar can hinder weight loss.
Sugar is empty calories, and I am under firm belief the original poster can find a tea they won't need to add sugar to. In comparison to one they need to add sugar to, it's going to be the healthier option - which is what this entire thread is about.
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/
From your link:
"If you’re trying to lose weight, a little sugar in your morning coffee or the occasional indulgence for a special occasion may be fine. However, if you find it difficult to stop eating once you start, and it becomes a large part of your everyday diet, it’s probably smart to steer clear"
Context is everything. Sugar is not the enemy. The amount of sugar you eat is what needs to be monitored.5 -
I tried oolong tea at the chinese buffet today and it was really good. a package of equal for the whole pot and I was good to go.2
-
BruinsGal_91 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).
"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.
Hmmm, so let me get this straight. I can only eat cheese on the days my husband plays golf? Not sure I'm happy with that.
No, it means if you eat more cheese, he gets to play golf more often.
Sorry, that's the rules. 5 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I tried oolong tea at the chinese buffet today and it was really good. a package of equal for the whole pot and I was good to go.
Oolong is my tea of choice.
1 -
soufauxgirl wrote: »Again - going off a statement from a nutritionalist. Also, many people do not log the sugar that they consume.
I'll stop commenting on this since this is obviously a sore point for so many people.
I fail to see what logging has to do with food being good or bad unless you are suggesting that sugar is making people forget to log it.
You really have to spell things out around here, don't you?
Many studies indicate the sugar can hinder weight loss.
Sugar is empty calories, and I am under firm belief the original poster can find a tea they won't need to add sugar to. In comparison to one they need to add sugar to, it's going to be the healthier option - which is what this entire thread is about.
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/
From your link:
"If you’re trying to lose weight, a little sugar in your morning coffee or the occasional indulgence for a special occasion may be fine. However, if you find it difficult to stop eating once you start, and it becomes a large part of your everyday diet, it’s probably smart to steer clear"
Context is everything. Sugar is not the enemy. The amount of sugar you eat is what needs to be monitored.
Yup! And this holds true for everything we eat, not just sugar.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions