Sugar Over but Calories Under

TLwineguzzler

I stopped paying attention to everything but the calories. so much less stressful

Me too - less braincells used as well :bigsmile:

Greytfish

Yes is the short answer.

However, your macros and exercise will dictate your body composition.

All a calorie deficit does is cause loss of mass, without regard to fat or muscle.

SunofaBeach14

In a word - yes.

Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it

Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.

There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola

at the molecular level all sugar is the same...when your body breaks down sugar, it is breaking down sugar..it is not saying "oh this is refined sugar and must be bad" or "oh, this is fruit sugar so it is good"....

Notice that in my previous comment I put 'good' and 'bad' in inverted commas - as to say there isn't technically such thing as good or bad sugar. It's my way of looking at sources of sugar, as I said, I would rather get all my sugar from natural sources, rather than knowing I've eaten a load of sugar from sources that have no nutritional value or benefit, such as sugary drinks.

That's fine if that's what YOU like doing but that doesn't change the fact that sugar is sugar... As long as I'm meeting my macronutrients, I will eat ice cream, caramel turtles, and a soda. Fruits are nice to get fiber and vitamins but if we're talking just sugar, doesn't matter.

Read this from a health expert, Dean Johnson.

***
Refined sugars:
Let’s start with ‘bad’ sugars. Yes, that’s right, refined sugars are the bad sugars. They are also the most common variety, the type that you see most often in the grocery store.

Refined sugar is bad for your body for any number of reasons, but it only takes two of them to really illustrate the fact.

1) Refined sugar has absolutely no nutritional value. Though it is derived from sugar canes & sugar beets, every ounce of nutrition is squeezed out of it during manufacture.

2) Refined sugar can have harmful chemicals included in it. Because it goes through a bleaching process after it is extracted from a plant, it isn’t uncommon for refined sugar to contain small amounts of carbon dioxide, phosphoric acid, or calcium hydroxide in it. While a second processing step is geared to eliminate these harmful substances from the finished product, it ends up doing more harm than good as the sugar is often run through a beef bone char as well.

Simply put, refined sugars are always bad. Stay away from them. They’re the kind of sugars that are found in almost every processed food, examples which include sodas, sweets, & baked goods. You might have also heard of refined sugars referred to as ‘empty calories.’

Unrefined Sugars:
‘Good sugars’ are sometimes known as unrefined sugars. Though that is a little misleading. In almost every instance, they have been slightly refined during their processing (but nowhere near as much as refined sugars). Because of this, unrefined sugars are often referred to as raw sugars.

The biggest benefit of raw sugar is that it retains many of the nutrients that it had before its minimal processing. This means that there is actually a reason to put it in your body other than just its taste. A few of these nutrients include phosphorus, calcium, iron, magnesium, & potassium.

Another reason that unrefined sugars are better than refined sugars is because they haven’t been extensively processed. No chemicals are used in processing so there is no chance that you’ll be consuming something that is dangerous to your body. In addition, the bone char step is also discarded (since the sugar doesn’t need to be unnaturally bleached).

Raw honey & raw maple syrup are two excellent examples of raw sugars. Obviously they can’t be used in everything but they do make an excellent sugar substitute in many cases. If you drink coffee or tea, just think about how many spoonful’s of sugar you could cut from your daily diet if you used a small quirt of honey as a sweetener instead.

Natural Sugars:
Finally, the best kinds of sugars of all are natural sugars. These are very similar to unrefined & raw sugars.

Natural sugars are the types that occur naturally in many plants that we eat on a daily basis. Because these sugars are completely unprocessed & bound alongside dozens of other nutrients, they are completely fine for you to be eating. In fact, they are great to eat!

Fruits & vegetables of all kinds contain natural sugars. They are an essential part of any healthy eating plan.
***

As this blog suggests, there are such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' sugars when it comes to health. Everyone on MFP (and elsewhere) always talks about how weight loss should be sustainable and involve *healthy* eating - it should be about leading a healthier lifestyle overall, not just losing as much weight as possible. You're right, as long as you're in calorie deficit you will lose weight, but common sense would suggest you should get calories from nutritious, wholesome food; not junk.

Back to the OP - yes you will lose weight, but depends on the type of sugar you're eating which will impact health. No point looking good on the outside if it's all bad on the inside...

Pure B.S.

Here, if you want a popular media story that actually discusses reality:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

And to quote: "And in one of the oddest findings, as the field of nutrition and public health became more convinced that fructose was effectively no different than sugar, the media coverage became more certain that it was."

Props to a friend who posted this on his wall.

ndj1979

i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF

so you can lose weight and increase your body fat at the same time? Sorry, does not work that way …if you are dropping weight then you are dropping body fat….

J72FIT

All a calorie deficit does is cause loss of mass, without regard to fat or muscle.

Even if you are strength training and getting enough protein? Also, what kind of deficit are we talking about here?

J72FIT

if you are losing weight and eating that amount of sugar, then you aren't carb sensitive.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here...

tashmeen

i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF

so you can lose weight and increase your body fat at the same time? Sorry, does not work that way …if you are dropping weight then you are dropping body fat….

Haha yes you can sweetheart ever heard of the term 'skinny fat' you can lose weight due to muscle loss as well which may decrease your overall mass but if you're losing more muscle than fat due to too many sugars taking up your calories, and not enough protein, it can increase the percentage in which your weight comes from fat.

tashmeen

if you are losing weight and eating that amount of sugar, then you aren't carb sensitive.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here...

Carb sensitivity is how well your body responds to carbohydrates... if she's happy with her results and still getting most of her calories from sugar (which adds to the carb count) then she obviously isn't responding as badly to them as someone like I would. Everyone is different and I'm not saying everyone should follow what I've written, it's just a guideline for ME that may be beneficial to others!

ndj1979

i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF

so you can lose weight and increase your body fat at the same time? Sorry, does not work that way …if you are dropping weight then you are dropping body fat….

Haha yes you can sweetheart ever heard of the term 'skinny fat' you can lose weight due to muscle loss as well which may decrease your overall mass but if you're losing more muscle than fat due to too many sugars taking up your calories, and not enough protein, it can increase the percentage in which your weight comes from fat.

yes, but your overall body fat percentage would be lower...

are you telling me if you are 200# and 28% body fat and you drop down to 150# that you would still be 28% body fat?

Yes, you can be skinny fat due to excess muscle loss on a VLCD but your overall body fat % will be lower..

Its basic math honey...

ndj1979

if you are losing weight and eating that amount of sugar, then you aren't carb sensitive.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here...

Carb sensitivity is how well your body responds to carbohydrates... if she's happy with her results and still getting most of her calories from sugar (which adds to the carb count) then she obviously isn't responding as badly to them as someone like I would. Everyone is different and I'm not saying everyone should follow what I've written, it's just a guideline for ME that may be beneficial to others!

Ironic = Everyone is different, but this is what worked for me so it will work for you too.....bahahahahahahaha

J72FIT

too many sugars taking up your calories, and not enough protein

This is the takeaway. If sugars (whatever the source) are over-consumed at the expense of protein and fat minimums.

tashmeen

if you are losing weight and eating that amount of sugar, then you aren't carb sensitive.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here...

Carb sensitivity is how well your body responds to carbohydrates... if she's happy with her results and still getting most of her calories from sugar (which adds to the carb count) then she obviously isn't responding as badly to them as someone like I would. Everyone is different and I'm not saying everyone should follow what I've written, it's just a guideline for ME that may be beneficial to others!

Ironic = Everyone is different, but this is what worked for me so it will work for you too.....bahahahahahahaha

I'm not saying it'll work for her. I'm saying it MAY if she's not seeing results due to too much sugar in her diet lol. I think you're just trying to counteract everything i'm saying. i'm just stating this may be an option with her and sharing what worked for me? which I don't think is such a bad thing?

J72FIT

Carb sensitivity is how well your body responds to carbohydrates

I think carb sensitivity is probably better associated with activity level. Generally speaking, the more active you are, the better you utilize (handle) carbs.

Greytfish

All a calorie deficit does is cause loss of mass, without regard to fat or muscle.

Even if you are strength training and getting enough protein? Also, what kind of deficit are we talking about here?

You would have to be getting "enough" protein (more than twice what MFP suggests) and usually supplementing with protein and/or aminos around your heavy training. Even then you will lose some muscle along with the fat. The OP is also a woman, so it's even more difficult to train in a deficit without losing muscle mass because even the most calorie efficient sources of protein are going to take up 700-800 plus calories in her daily food intake. Then you still have the vegetables, etc. you need to hit your micronutirent needs and/or to supplement for things like Vit D, magnesium, calcium, and iron - and to space those out.

Men, admittedly, with generally more generous TDEE, testosterone, and less issues with maintaining adequate micronutrients will have a much easier time of it.

psuLemon

Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).


Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more

First sentence is false. Caloric surplus causes weight gain.

Second statement is exactly where you are going wrong. First off - read more books. Not being a **** either, because when I originally read that book I fell for the cherry picking of science that Taubes employs too.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html <---read the comments too
http://weightology.net/?p=265 <----amazing breakdown of a chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories (this was his first book that the book you mentioned is based off of)
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bray-review-of-gcbc.pdf <-- bray review of Good Calories bad calories

Thanks for these articles tedrickp. I will withdraw my comments and return to the books. :happy: Just to note, I don't use an Atkins type diet. However, I do try and reduce my overall calories intake mainly through reduction in snacking and Coca-Cola. This might explain why I find the Taupes information so appealing.

The problem is Taubes is a propagandist. He cherry picks studies to sell books. This issue with all of these discussions is people become extremist in their examples. No one on MFP will say get your whole diet from refined sugar. What they are saying, is that it's ok to have sugar if you are meeting your other macronutrient goals. If you hit your goals and want a coke or ice cream, it will not make you unhealthy. To assume that moderate intake of refine sugar will deteriorate your health, it's plain crazy. The biggest issue is people try to think it's all or nothing.... instead of moderation.

If cutting snacks and soda helped you... great! Because diet adherence is the key for weight loss. But in the end, there is no reason to fear monger food, of any type. And depending on your training, it' s possible coke would be more beneficial to your routine (as caffeine has been shown to be beneficial to exercise intensity). That isn't to say, that you should drink coke before every workout, but may be in cases it may be feasible.

Below are some good articles on studies on sugar. Hopefully, you will find real science to be more beneficial then propaganda.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804

bepeejaye

I wonder the same thing too as I almost always go over on the sugar and sometimes the carbs (because I eat so much fruit - both whole and juiced).

psuLemon

I wonder the same thing too as I almost always go over on the sugar and sometimes the carbs (because I eat so much fruit - both whole and juiced).

The bigger thing you would want to question is if you are getting enough protein. Looking at your diary, it may be beneficial to substitute some of your carbs for higher protein foods. A person should be aiming for around .8-1g of protein per lb of lean body mass. Essentially that comes close to 70-80% of your body weight in grams of protein. This along with weight training will improve the amount of muscle you retain during weight loss.

mantium999

This thread is full of garbage. I wish the OP luck navigating through it, but if successful, there is actually some useful info buried in this mess. Wow.

yarwell

I wonder the same thing too as I almost always go over on the sugar and sometimes the carbs (because I eat so much fruit - both whole and juiced).

Did you set the sugar yourself, or have you not run the goal setting since late last year ? MFP has a new sugar number, don't know if it is applied retrospectively.

http://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals

yarwell

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1181259-so-what-s-with-this-sugar-then-revised-faq-jan-2014

bepeejaye

I set my own macros using tools like the Scooby Workshop, the Fat2Fit Radio etc....

100% Whey Protein Isolate does help me get closer to my protein mark on the days that I life - and I mix with the juiced fruit.

Sorry OP, for detracting from your original post

I wonder the same thing too as I almost always go over on the sugar and sometimes the carbs (because I eat so much fruit - both whole and juiced).

Did you set the sugar yourself, or have you not run the goal setting since late last year ? MFP has a new sugar number, don't know if it is applied retrospectively.

http://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals