250 calories per day on chocolate?
Replies
-
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Hmmm... Then why did I lose 40 pounds while eating all the sugars?? If his assertation was correct then I wouldn't have lost any weight because my body would simply use my dietary sugar for fuel and not even touch my body fat.... And that didn't happen so.... Maybe it was in fact the calorie deficit I was in that resulted in my weight loss....
Same here. Dietary sugar isn't listed in food here, just overall carbs/fat/protein so I don't even track sugar. I've lost over 70lbs.
Add my 51 lbs to this. :drinker: medical marvels, I guess!
I'm a bit bored of sugar being demonised and blamed for weight gain.
CHOCOLATE didn't make you fat.
Eating too much goddamn food and not moving enough made you fat.
Eat a little bit less of everything, move a little bit more than you did before.
Sugar is not going to come into your bedroom at night and fart on your pillow.
Yeah it's getting a little old.... I have no doubt that it wasn't the sugar in the cookies I ate that made me fat. It was eating the whole box in one night after nachos and three rum and cokes in addition to the three servings of muesli, three Greek yogurts, two bananas, two apples, the orange, the turkey sandwich, the five cheese sticks, the half bag of carrots (five servings) and two cucumbers and entire bag of goldfish crackers I ate every day while doing no exercise that made me fat.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Hmmm... Then why did I lose 40 pounds while eating all the sugars?? If his assertation was correct then I wouldn't have lost any weight because my body would simply use my dietary sugar for fuel and not even touch my body fat.... And that didn't happen so.... Maybe it was in fact the calorie deficit I was in that resulted in my weight loss....
Same here. Dietary sugar isn't listed in food here, just overall carbs/fat/protein so I don't even track sugar. I've lost over 70lbs.
Add my 51 lbs to this. :drinker: medical marvels, I guess!
I'm a bit bored of sugar being demonised and blamed for weight gain.
CHOCOLATE didn't make you fat.
Eating too much goddamn food and not moving enough made you fat.
Eat a little bit less of everything, move a little bit more than you did before.
Sugar is not going to come into your bedroom at night and fart on your pillow.
Yeah it's getting a little old.... I have no doubt that it wasn't the sugar in the cookies I ate that made me fat. It was eating the whole box in one night after nachos and three rum and cokes in addition to the three servings of muesli, three Greek yogurts, two bananas, two apples, the orange, the turkey sandwich, the five cheese sticks, the half bag of carrots (five servings) and two cucumbers and entire bag of goldfish crackers I ate every day while doing no exercise that made me fat.
I have the weirdest boner right now.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
But if the OP stays under her calorie allowance she is still in a deficit and will still lose weight... SOOOO she can still have some chocolate.
The post you dispute didn't assert otherwise. Caloric deficit will always result in weight loss absent a metabolic or specific health condition interfering. And that may very well be the goal for many overeaters without a history of health and fitness since they have a tendency to focus exclusively on losing weight ratehr than a healthy body composition or remaining injury free.
Caloric deficit will cause weight loss, yes. If you want to lose existing body fat, you have to be conscious of how much of your dietary intake with further or thwart those goals. Your body will burn the sugars, then the carbs before it ever gets to burning more than a small amount of fat, let alone the bodyfat one is already carrying.0 -
Be careful of your fat and sugar intake too! You might be within your calorie target, but if you are significantly over your fat and sugar intake on a regular basis you probably won't see the results.
This is not a factual statement, fat and sugar won't make you gain weight unless there is a surplus.
Rigger
There is a little truth to her statement, but only when you are on the extremely lean side already (sub 10% on men). for the vast majority of people this is not the case.
Rubbish. Eat all the chocolate. Buy the good shizzle.0 -
Yeah it's getting a little old.... I have no doubt that it wasn't the sugar in the cookies I ate that made me fat. It was eating the whole box in one night after nachos and three rum and cokes in addition to the three servings of muesli, three Greek yogurts, two bananas, two apples, the orange, the turkey sandwich, the five cheese sticks, the half bag of carrots (five servings) and two cucumbers and entire bag of goldfish crackers I ate every day while doing no exercise that made me fat.
The best part of that whole list is that it's almost entirely sugars in one form or another.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
But if the OP stays under her calorie allowance she is still in a deficit and will still lose weight... SOOOO she can still have some chocolate.
The post you dispute didn't assert otherwise. Caloric deficit will always result in weight loss absent a metabolic or specific health condition interfering. And that may very well be the goal for many overeaters without a history of health and fitness since they have a tendency to focus exclusively on losing weight ratehr than a healthy body composition or remaining injury free.
Caloric deficit will cause weight loss, yes. If you want to lose existing body fat, you have to be conscious of how much of your dietary intake with further or thwart those goals. Your body will burn the sugars, then the carbs before it ever gets to burning more than a small amount of fat, let alone the bodyfat one is already carrying.
My body burnt plenty of fat over the past 8 months while I ate copious amounts if sugar. I balanced my macros but I do not care about sugar.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
In deficit. Doesn't matter. Eat all the chocolate.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
But if the OP stays under her calorie allowance she is still in a deficit and will still lose weight... SOOOO she can still have some chocolate.
The post you dispute didn't assert otherwise. Caloric deficit will always result in weight loss absent a metabolic or specific health condition interfering. And that may very well be the goal for many overeaters without a history of health and fitness since they have a tendency to focus exclusively on losing weight ratehr than a healthy body composition or remaining injury free.
Caloric deficit will cause weight loss, yes. If you want to lose existing body fat, you have to be conscious of how much of your dietary intake with further or thwart those goals. Your body will burn the sugars, then the carbs before it ever gets to burning more than a small amount of fat, let alone the bodyfat one is already carrying.
Well then get me to a lab cause with 100+ grams of sugar daily and tons of fat loss I must be a gd miracle of modern science!!!0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
But if the OP stays under her calorie allowance she is still in a deficit and will still lose weight... SOOOO she can still have some chocolate.
The post you dispute didn't assert otherwise. Caloric deficit will always result in weight loss absent a metabolic or specific health condition interfering. And that may very well be the goal for many overeaters without a history of health and fitness since they have a tendency to focus exclusively on losing weight ratehr than a healthy body composition or remaining injury free.
Caloric deficit will cause weight loss, yes. If you want to lose existing body fat, you have to be conscious of how much of your dietary intake with further or thwart those goals. Your body will burn the sugars, then the carbs before it ever gets to burning more than a small amount of fat, let alone the bodyfat one is already carrying.
Okay, so according to your logic:
Eat at a calorie deficit (regardless of what you eat) = losing weight
Eat too much sugar and your body will burn the sugar and then carbs and THEN finally the fat.
So if I constantly ate at a deficit for a year, and consumed say, ONLY twinkies, I would lose weight because I'm in a deficit but it wouldn't be fat?
What would I be losing?0 -
Yeah it's getting a little old.... I have no doubt that it wasn't the sugar in the cookies I ate that made me fat. It was eating the whole box in one night after nachos and three rum and cokes in addition to the three servings of muesli, three Greek yogurts, two bananas, two apples, the orange, the turkey sandwich, the five cheese sticks, the half bag of carrots (five servings) and two cucumbers and entire bag of goldfish crackers I ate every day while doing no exercise that made me fat.
The best part of that whole list is that it's almost entirely sugars in one form or another.
The best part about that list is that wasn't all I used to eat in a day
0 -
Well folks I gotta hit the road for my long run but seriously. Op. If you have the calories and you have gotten enough protein for the day, then by all means. EAT THE CHOCOLATE. If you don't have a medical reason to avoid simple sugar then you are fine. Your body will not say oh look! Chocolate! Great! I am gonna just use this for fuel for the entire day and not even look at your bodily fat despite you being in a deficit. Because as long as you are in a calorie deficit for the day, your body will burn fat from itself. It has no choice. Your glucose stores are already depleted if you have been in a calorie deficit for longer then a week so your body has no choice but to burn bodily fat for fuel if you are eating below your maintenance level of calories and are in a calorie deficit.0
-
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).0
-
Yes, you can still lose weight eating 250 calories worth of chocolate everyday. Just as long as it is planned in your calorie goals and you are still at a deficit. Chocolate is good!0
-
Yeah it's getting a little old.... I have no doubt that it wasn't the sugar in the cookies I ate that made me fat. It was eating the whole box in one night after nachos and three rum and cokes in addition to the three servings of muesli, three Greek yogurts, two bananas, two apples, the orange, the turkey sandwich, the five cheese sticks, the half bag of carrots (five servings) and two cucumbers and entire bag of goldfish crackers I ate every day while doing no exercise that made me fat.
The best part of that whole list is that it's almost entirely sugars in one form or another.
The best part about that list is that wasn't all I used to eat in a day
I don't doubt it any more than I doubt advice given by people with a demonstrated unhealthy relationship with food is well intentioned, if still colored by that relationship.0 -
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.0 -
Eat it! As long as your at a deficit and make sure you weigh out everything so as to not overestimate the rest of your calories. Also, Id recommend finding a chocolate bar with less calories if you're eating it every day just so you have more calories leftover for good foods. Maybe you can make a personal goal to go down to eating that chocolate bar every other day instead of everyday? You'll start to feel better about yourself and your weight loss by hitting small goals like that 0
-
Is it acceptable to eat 250 calories worth of chocolate per day when you are trying to lose weight, as long as you are still in your calorie limit? I have tried to have just one small piece or swap it for dark but it just isnt working and i keep failing! I was reading somewhere that eating chocolate or other junk food is really bad for weight loss as a calorie is not just a calorie, but i always thought it didn't matter in terms of weight loss as long as you are at a calorie deficit. Have any of you had chocolate daily and managed to use a significant amount of weight? I have 100 pounds to lose and chocolate is my nemesis
If you're able to control yourself, then absolutely! Try dark, more antioxidants :-)0 -
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.
I read exactly what you posted.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
Eating sugar means I won't burn fat
So if I am eating sugar on a calorie deficit and lose weight, what is it I am losing?
pls respond, I am scared for my organs.0 -
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.
I read exactly what you posted.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
Eating sugar means I won't burn fat
So if I am eating sugar on a calorie deficit and lose weight, what is it I am losing?
pls respond, I am scared for my organs.
Well, you read, I'll give you that. You apparently didn't understand the plain meaning.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.0 -
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.
I read exactly what you posted.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
Eating sugar means I won't burn fat
So if I am eating sugar on a calorie deficit and lose weight, what is it I am losing?
pls respond, I am scared for my organs.
Well, you read, I'll give you that. You apparently didn't understand the plain meaning.
And you appear to be masterfully adept at being condescending and avoiding the question.
Please explain what I am burning to lose weight if I am not burning fat.0 -
Is it acceptable to eat 250 calories worth of chocolate per day when you are trying to lose weight, as long as you are still in your calorie limit? I have tried to have just one small piece or swap it for dark but it just isnt working and i keep failing! I was reading somewhere that eating chocolate or other junk food is really bad for weight loss as a calorie is not just a calorie, but i always thought it didn't matter in terms of weight loss as long as you are at a calorie deficit. Have any of you had chocolate daily and managed to use a significant amount of weight? I have 100 pounds to lose and chocolate is my nemesis
It won't be giving you any vital nutrients it is basically empty calories. However that said chocolate does give you Phenylethylamine and antioxidants (the dark stuff that is) but the milk and other chemicals do negate these (to a degree) in milk chocolate.
If your getting your protein, fats and other essential nutrients from the other food your eating - why not indulge ( as long as your eating a deficit it won't be doing you any harm).
If you can try the dark chocolate again it would be beneficial (I find a glass of Merlot takes the edge off the bitterness)????0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
But if the OP stays under her calorie allowance she is still in a deficit and will still lose weight... SOOOO she can still have some chocolate.
The post you dispute didn't assert otherwise. Caloric deficit will always result in weight loss absent a metabolic or specific health condition interfering. And that may very well be the goal for many overeaters without a history of health and fitness since they have a tendency to focus exclusively on losing weight ratehr than a healthy body composition or remaining injury free.
Caloric deficit will cause weight loss, yes. If you want to lose existing body fat, you have to be conscious of how much of your dietary intake with further or thwart those goals. Your body will burn the sugars, then the carbs before it ever gets to burning more than a small amount of fat, let alone the bodyfat one is already carrying.
Ok. Let's say you are driving from Washington DC to Washington state in a hybrid car. You have 120 miles of electricity and a 20 gallon tank. At some point, you are going to have to stop for a recharge and some gas. However, in the context of a long distance trip, it's not going to matter what the car uses first: gas or electric. You'll still have to stop.
City driving - yes. Your options are different and how your car uses the fuel is going to impact your choices. But for long distance. you aren't going to get significantly farther whichever fuel burns first, because you are going to use all of it.0 -
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.
I read exactly what you posted.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
Eating sugar means I won't burn fat
So if I am eating sugar on a calorie deficit and lose weight, what is it I am losing?
pls respond, I am scared for my organs.
Well, you read, I'll give you that. You apparently didn't understand the plain meaning.
And you appear to be masterfully adept at being condescending and avoiding the question.
Please explain what I am burning to lose weight if I am not burning fat.
As long as you are eating a healthy enough portion of protein and a calorific deficit your weight loss should be coming from your stored body fat ( adipose tissue).
If your eating too much of a deficit and not getting the required amount of protein when you liver kicks in to produce glycogen and there is not enough amino acid from dietary protein it will take it from your lean mass.
In any calorie deficit diet substantial protein and ideal resistance train will be lean mass sparring.
,0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.0 -
Yes......the great sugar debate. The question was: can the OP eat 250 calories (of chocolate) and lose weight. Answer: If it fits into your calorie limit, yes! Now.......I'm off to measure my uvula :bigsmile:
0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
I think this is why everybody was careful to say that meeting macros was first and then chocolate.
If somebody is meeting their macro targets and still in a deficit, will a small amount of sugar and fat cause a noticible change in the ability to lose weight?0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
This is true - a 3500 calorie deficit a week should equal in loss.
1lb - 100% body fat
1.7lb - 50/50 body fat and lean mass
5.8lb - 100% lean mass
Lean mass is muscle, bone, sinew, connective tissue and organs.
It's always healthier to take it slow and just burn the body fat. As long as you've got the right diet it's simple (not always easy - but simple)0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
Okay, so are you saying I have been losing muscle mass and not fat, because I consume sugar?
I eat about 1g protein per lb of lean body mass, do three days a week of HITT running intervals and walk an hour a day. I also do about 35 minutes of circuits three times a week with weights. On my "rest" days I am still pretty active walking and doing yoga/mobility exercises (I have poor mobility in my hips due to being overweight for so long).
I have been doing this (or some variation of) for about two years. I meet my macronutrients and I eat chocolate, candy, honey, fruit. I cook with sugar (I make a lot of Japanese food) and it always fits into my carb macro allowance.
I have lost 70lbs.
Was that whole 70lbs muscle? If so, I must look like the Michelin man!!
-checks profile pic-
Nope, looks like I have pretty muscular legs and much less fat.
Explain again, I clearly missed the part where you're right.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
I think this is why everybody was careful to say that meeting macros was first and then chocolate.
If somebody is meeting their macro targets and still in a deficit, will a small amount of sugar and fat cause a noticible change in the ability to lose weight?
Not at all. You may not get to where your going as quick, but you will still get there.0
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