Why you should cut out/lower sodium, sugar or carbs
Options
Replies
-
Yes, but why would I choose to have chocolate for breakfast, then deal with part of my brain annoying me all day for more, when I can choose to not have it very often? And why is it easier for me to choose to eat nothing on a given day than to eat say, 1200 calories of high carb, high sugar food? I argue it's because something is up with the brain wiring that makes an easy choice for one person difficult for another and vice versa.
See my other reply0 -
You left out the part where you have a tiny portion, and then part of your brain pesters you all day for more, and how annoying that is and how it cuts into your concentration and saps your extra energy. Does that not happen to you? Because it does to me. Which is why I only keep in the house what I'm going to eat that day.
Nope...doesn't happen to me.
Case in point, I buy Almond butter w/ coconut in it....
LOVE IT!!!
I could sit and eat the whole jar.....
But I eat the serving that allows me to meet my macro goals for the day and then stop.
Again because I have my goals in mind all the time and what I want......
achieving anything begins in the mind.
And also cause that crap costs me $9 for a small jar of it. :mad: :mad: :grumble: :grumble:
See? Brains might be wired different. So what works for you won't work for me.
And yet, I intermittent fast. Sometimes I go two days with little to no food, something the guy who came up with 5:2 thought would be too difficult for people to comply with, and that is the only reason he said don't do consecutive days. It's a breeze for me. My brain will nag at me once in awhile, but I tell it to shut up and it does. Yet I have chocolate for breakfast and it's like a toddler screaming MORE! in my ear all day.
Makes no sense, I admit, but there it is.
are there underlying emotional conditions associated with chocolate cake for you??
just wondering....
If you are able to exert control over your appetite to do that form of fasting.....
then perhaps there is something else going on....
Not so much that we are wired differently.
I know for some people, food is a comfort when they are stressed or upset.....
I am kinda the opposite...when I am stressed or upset, I could care less about food......
I have no desire to eat at all.
Not as far as I know. I have always, since early childhood, craved large amounts of sugary food.
And I can be perfectly happy and content, but if I start my day with the wrong thing, I will crave the rest of the day.
You all have talked me into it (unintentionally, no doubt). I'm going back on my ADD medication, this is a pain in the butt, and why am I putting myself through it when I know what will fix it?0 -
Ok then, good luck, wish you all the best.Not as far as I know. I have always, since early childhood, craved large amounts of sugary food.
And I can be perfectly happy and content, but if I start my day with the wrong thing, I will crave the rest of the day.
You all have talked me into it (unintentionally, no doubt). I'm going back on my ADD medication, this is a pain in the butt, and why am I putting myself through it when I know what will fix it?0 -
Ok then, good luck, wish you all the best.Not as far as I know. I have always, since early childhood, craved large amounts of sugary food.
And I can be perfectly happy and content, but if I start my day with the wrong thing, I will crave the rest of the day.
You all have talked me into it (unintentionally, no doubt). I'm going back on my ADD medication, this is a pain in the butt, and why am I putting myself through it when I know what will fix it?
Same to you!
0 -
A very simplistic view. The likelihood is that the actual calories you consume (which are excessively high in sugar - as in the twinkie diet) will probably stay in the body for days, weeks or months after they have been eaten.
What will be used is body fat which has previously been stored from a day, week or month ago.
I was just pointing out that just because you consume calories today, the energy you burn will not necessarily be from the calories you consume that day - its not as simple as calories in vs calories out.
Not all of the calories you consume on any given day will necessarily be used as energy to fuel the body, either that day - or ever.
The concept of eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight is sound, but a bit more complicated than people make out.
:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
Care to produce any studies on that??
Again, if you are in Deficit....consuming less than what you need......
Your body still keeps going, and will resort to other energy sources to make sure that happens....
You will burn energy from somewhere...whether it is muscle, fat or glucose
If you are in deficit.....
Your body has a natural desire to oxidize what it consumes.....
When we over consume, that is when our body stores it, and says "I will come back to you later, once I finish with this other stuff".....
I'm not sure what we are arguing against here.
I am agreeing that the body will continue to burn fuel for energy, whether it's from an immediate source such as glucose, or from glycogen produced by the liver or from the glycogen stored in either the muscles or liver or from the bodies stored fatty acids.
A diet which is high (to excessive) in glucose will store some of the excess glucose as body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.
I have yet to see a study to conclude that the body works on a last in first out bases for converting body fat into fuel, therefore my point is the calories we consume in any given day are not necessarily the calories we burn for fuel.
I whole heartily agree that if you eat in a deficit you will loss weight, no argument there.
I will edit my original statement of calories in vs calories stored (as this is incorrect and has probably caused the confusion - soz)
It is more about calories BURNT vs calories stored!0 -
I add extra monosodium glutamate to all of my food 0
-
Again, any studies??
I'm not sure what we are arguing against here.
I am agreeing that the body will continue to burn fuel for energy, whether it's from an immediate source such as glucose, or from glycogen produced by the liver or from the glycogen stored in either the muscles or liver or from the bodies stored fatty acids.
A diet which is high (to excessive) in glucose will store some of the excess glucose as body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.
Most of my reading tends to point to the fact that sugar/carbs being stored as fat is very rare...nearly impossible.
But I could be wrong
Ok then.
I have yet to see a study to conclude that the body works on a last in first out bases for converting body fat into fuel, therefore my point is the calories we consume in any given day are not necessarily the calories we burn for fuel.
I whole heartily agree that if you eat in a deficit you will loss weight, no argument there.
Why does this happen??
Because you are pulling energy from somewhere.....
Like a car and gasoline....it will not run if the tank is empty.
Same with the body.....it needs energy.
So if you are in deficit, it is gonna find the energy from somewhere to sustain life.0 -
I add extra monosodium glutamate to all of my food
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Gonna fry your brain w/ that $#!% :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
I will excerpt this paragraph from one of Lyle's write ups...
Full article is here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.htmlCarbohydrate
For carbohydrate, the body’s stores are relatively close to the daily intake. A normal non-carb loaded person may store 300-400 grams of muscle glycogen, another 50 or so of liver glyogen and 10 or so in the bloodstream as free glucose. So let’s say 350-450 grams of carbohydrate as a rough average. On a relatively normal diet of 2700 calories, if a person eats the ‘recommended’ 60% carbs, that’s 400 grams. So about the amount that’s stored in the body already.
For this reason, the body is extremely good at modulating carbohydrate oxidation to carbohydrate intake. Eat more carbs and you burn more carbs (you also store more glycogen); eat less carbs and you burn less carbs (and glycogen levels drop). This occurs for a variety of reasons including changing insulin levels (fructose, for example, since it doesn’t raise insulin, doesn’t increase carbohydrate oxidation) and simple substrate availability. And, as it turns out, fat oxidation is basically inversely related to carbohydrate oxidation.
So when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs and burn less fat; eat less carbs and you burn less carbs and burn more fat. And don’t jump to the immediate conclusion that lowcarb diets are therefore superior for fat loss because lowcarb diets are also higher in fat intake (generally speaking). You’re burning more fat, but you’re also eating more. But that’s a topic that I’ve not only addressed previously on the site but may look at in more detail in a future article with this piece as background.0 -
For anyone who doesn't want their sugar, sodium, carbs, etc...send 'em to me! I'll work 'em into my daily intake gladly!! :flowerforyou:0
-
Again, any studies??
I'm not sure what we are arguing against here.
I am agreeing that the body will continue to burn fuel for energy, whether it's from an immediate source such as glucose, or from glycogen produced by the liver or from the glycogen stored in either the muscles or liver or from the bodies stored fatty acids.
A diet which is high (to excessive) in glucose will store some of the excess glucose as body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.
Most of my reading tends to point to the fact that sugar/carbs being stored as fat is very rare...nearly impossible.
But I could be wrong
Ok then.
I have yet to see a study to conclude that the body works on a last in first out bases for converting body fat into fuel, therefore my point is the calories we consume in any given day are not necessarily the calories we burn for fuel.
I whole heartily agree that if you eat in a deficit you will loss weight, no argument there.
Why does this happen??
Because you are pulling energy from somewhere.....
Like a car and gasoline....it will not run if the tank is empty.
Same with the body.....it needs energy.
So if you are in deficit, it is gonna find the energy from somewhere to sustain life.
The example was extreme (regards the twinkie diet).
Excessive sugar in the blood stream will be either used as immediate fuel, then taken up by/and stored in the muscles and liver (both of which have limited storage) and any glucose left will be converted to body fat. In the case of the twinkie diet I should think that would be the case.
Even elite athletes with 10% body fat have an abundance of fuel on tap at anyone time - adipose tissue.
For the average person the body can run quite effectively on zero dietary carbs (I'm not suggesting that by the way - some dietary carbs are optimal).
I'm just making the point that the adipose tissue the body draws the fuel from is not necessarily the body fat it converted the same day. Burn more than you store and you lose weight.0 -
The level of extremes in here is hilarious. But, it's to be expected with every post like this.
For the most part, and I think we've all ruled out those with medical conditions, when people decide to track food in an effort to stop over consumption, this will automatically result in lower carbs(sugars), sodium, fat, but not always protein. When you are more aware of what you are eating, regardless of your style of eating, then macronutrients will usually fall into place on their own. The confusion comes in when people feel they need to lower them even more from reading someones extreme post or an overblown article. When, in reality, they've already lowered carbs(sugars), sodium, etc, from their previous eating levels just by lowering calorie intake.
The reason I mentioned protein not lowering is that, most of the time, people aren't eating enough. Now, that level will have a bearing on their goals, but still most people, IMO, could stand to eat more.
I don't think the OP was that far off. The intent was directed to people who are thoroughly confused. It's not hard to find an article in a popular magazine or newspaper demonizing foods. Her point was that if you don't feel like cutting out certain things, then it's not necessary. If you are someone who just feels the need to stay away from certain foods because of psychological reasons, then that's your business and your business alone.0 -
Ok then, good luck, wish you all the best.Not as far as I know. I have always, since early childhood, craved large amounts of sugary food.
And I can be perfectly happy and content, but if I start my day with the wrong thing, I will crave the rest of the day.
You all have talked me into it (unintentionally, no doubt). I'm going back on my ADD medication, this is a pain in the butt, and why am I putting myself through it when I know what will fix it?
One more thing, just to clarify: My ADD medicine didn't help me resist cravings after I ate a reasonable portion of chocolate. My ADD medicine made it so I didn't HAVE the cravings after a reasonable portion of chocolate.
Why I don't know.0 -
Another highlight from that link:I will excerpt this paragraph from one of Lyle's write ups...
Full article is here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.htmlCarbohydrate
For carbohydrate, the body’s stores are relatively close to the daily intake. A normal non-carb loaded person may store 300-400 grams of muscle glycogen, another 50 or so of liver glyogen and 10 or so in the bloodstream as free glucose. So let’s say 350-450 grams of carbohydrate as a rough average. On a relatively normal diet of 2700 calories, if a person eats the ‘recommended’ 60% carbs, that’s 400 grams. So about the amount that’s stored in the body already.
For this reason, the body is extremely good at modulating carbohydrate oxidation to carbohydrate intake. Eat more carbs and you burn more carbs (you also store more glycogen); eat less carbs and you burn less carbs (and glycogen levels drop). This occurs for a variety of reasons including changing insulin levels (fructose, for example, since it doesn’t raise insulin, doesn’t increase carbohydrate oxidation) and simple substrate availability. And, as it turns out, fat oxidation is basically inversely related to carbohydrate oxidation.
So when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs and burn less fat; eat less carbs and you burn less carbs and burn more fat. And don’t jump to the immediate conclusion that lowcarb diets are therefore superior for fat loss because lowcarb diets are also higher in fat intake (generally speaking). You’re burning more fat, but you’re also eating more. But that’s a topic that I’ve not only addressed previously on the site but may look at in more detail in a future article with this piece as background.
"Carbohydrates can be stored as liver or muscle glycogen, under rare circumstances they are converted to and stored as fat"0 -
The example was extreme (regards the twinkie diet).
Excessive sugar in the blood stream will be either used as immediate fuel, then taken up by/and stored in the muscles and liver (both of which have limited storage) and any glucose left will be converted to body fat. In the case of the twinkie diet I should think that would be the case.
Even elite athletes with 10% body fat have an abundance of fuel on tap at anyone time - adipose tissue.
For the average person the body can run quite effectively on zero dietary carbs (I'm not suggesting that by the way - some dietary carbs are optimal).
I'm just making the point that the adipose tissue the body draws the fuel from is not necessarily the body fat it converted the same day. Burn more than you store and you lose weight.
Was not extreme
He ate twinkies
stayed below caloric needs (<TDEE)
He lost weight.
If you are in a deficit....then at some point your energy that is in the blood stream is exhausted.
And the body starts going elsewhere...
Then we could also get into types of exercise.
A lot of things I have read, tend to point to low intensity forms of exercise, will have greater effect on BF....
i.e. doing stair master....0 -
The example was extreme (regards the twinkie diet).
Excessive sugar in the blood stream will be either used as immediate fuel, then taken up by/and stored in the muscles and liver (both of which have limited storage) and any glucose left will be converted to body fat. In the case of the twinkie diet I should think that would be the case.
Even elite athletes with 10% body fat have an abundance of fuel on tap at anyone time - adipose tissue.
For the average person the body can run quite effectively on zero dietary carbs (I'm not suggesting that by the way - some dietary carbs are optimal).
I'm just making the point that the adipose tissue the body draws the fuel from is not necessarily the body fat it converted the same day. Burn more than you store and you lose weight.
Was not extreme
He ate twinkies
stayed below caloric needs (<TDEE)
He lost weight.
If you are in a deficit....then at some point your energy that is in the blood stream is exhausted.
And the body starts going elsewhere...
Then we could also get into types of exercise.
A lot of things I have read, tend to point to low intensity forms of exercise, will have greater effect on BF....
i.e. doing stair master....
Okay, let move on from this then.
Low intensity exercise is very good for overall health (different from fitness - you can be fit, but not necessarily healthy).
Nothing beats a good sprint session though. 0 -
Okay, let move on from this then.
Low intensity exercise is very good for overall health (different from fitness - you can be fit, but not necessarily healthy).
Nothing beats a good sprint session though.
yeah perhaps....
But I ain't big on sprinting, so I don't do that much. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
I really am in the mood for twinkies and chocolate cake now.... sounds like a good lunch 0
-
I really am in the mood for twinkies and chocolate cake now.... sounds like a good lunch
eat both at once - chocolate twinkie.
0 -
I'm a big believer in lower carbs helping to keep weight off. I've done it, and lost/maintained for quite awhile, until I stopped watching what I was eating. If I cut carbs it helps me lose, even better than calorie deficit alone.I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
The only reason why cutting out sugar and carbs is helping you not get fat is because it's helping you restrict your calorie intake and/or preventing you from bingeing if they are trigger foods (also, restricting your calorie intake).
I've been stuck the past two weeks so I'm going to start watching carbs, protein and calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions