Calorie Deficits and Sugar
Replies
-
There are no countries that consume as much sugar as we do and have low obesity rates...
Correlation =\= causation.
Read this: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/correlation-vs-causation/
So you're saying that correlation doesn't equal causation, but the assumption (still unverified) that there are countries that eat as much sugar as us that aren't obese is an argument for eating sugar? Where's the causation there?
The point is that you don't understand basic statistics and are using logical fallacies to attempt justify your anti-sugar commentary. Read the article and spend some time digesting it (pun intended). The bolded parts make no argument other than to indicate a weak unsupported correlation.
You are also regurgitating comments from others without giving proper citation (Lustig and Taubes come to mind immediately).
Not anti-sugar, not pro-sugar either. It's interesting that most of the people arguing with me probably don't eat a lot of sweets. That's kind of the point of MFP in the first place. Lastly you didn't answer my question. The comparison of causation and correlation is irrelevant because there is no correlation until someone finds a country with low obesity rates that consumes as much sugar as America.
Fine here's a citation from those wacko's at Time magazine.
Myth 1. A carbohydrate is a carbohydrate; they all have the same calories.
Half true. There are three molecules that make up all the various kinds of carbohydrate: glucose, galactose, and fructose. All three molecules have the same caloric density—4.1 kcal/gm — which is why people erroneously conclude that “a calorie is a calorie.” Glucose is what’s found in starch; it’s the energy of life; all cells in all organisms on the planet burn glucose to make energy. Galactose (the molecule exclusively found in milk sugar) is rapidly converted in the liver to glucose. Fructose (the molecule that makes sugar sweet) is also metabolized in the liver, but any excess is converted into liver fat. Chronic and excess alcohol or fructose exposure both cause fatty liver disease, which drives the pathologic process of insulin resistance, and causes the same chronic diseases — obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/27/what-you-need-to-know-about-sugar/0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Completely false. As a matter of fact I have my own ice cream, gelato and sweets group here on MFP. Sorry to burst your bubble.
everyone stop eating sugar of any sort forever, said no one EVER!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Completely false. As a matter of fact I have my own ice cream, gelato and sweets group here on MFP. Sorry to burst your
everyone stop eating sugar of any sort forever, said no one EVER!
Obvious troll is obvious
you even gave the classic troll line - I'd post studies but no one would read them, followed by asking questions instead of answering those aimed at you
4/10
edit: to fix quote boxes0 -
I think that sugar is the easiest thing to cut out of a diet. I'm pretty much on a diabetic diet, even though I don't have diabetes - but have found that keeping my sugar below 10-15g per day has not effect on my cognitive abilities nor my appetite.
Evolutionary speaking, the amount of sugar Americans eat (I know this is a global site) is significantly more than 100 years ago and the farther back you go in time, the less sugars we had the opportunity to eat on a regular basis.
Keeping sugar down has been very efficient and effective in lowering my caloric intake. And because I don't have much of a sweet tooth, its no big deal. I can give up sugar easier than meat (fish, fowl, beef...). Others may be different.0 -
Last point, read Sidesteels link to weightology. It's very informative.
I knew these avi's were confusing
0 -
I think that sugar is the easiest thing to cut out of a diet. I'm pretty much on a diabetic diet, even though I don't have diabetes - but have found that keeping my sugar below 10-15g per day has not effect on my cognitive abilities nor my appetite.
Evolutionary speaking, the amount of sugar Americans eat (I know this is a global site) is significantly more than 100 years ago and the farther back you go in time, the less sugars we had the opportunity to eat on a regular basis.
Keeping sugar down has been very efficient and effective in lowering my caloric intake. And because I don't have much of a sweet tooth, its no big deal. I can give up sugar easier than meat (fish, fowl, beef...). Others may be different.
Which is nice for you - but all it does is give you less calories.
the answer is A) unless you have a medical condition sugar has zero affect on weight loss when consumed in a deficit.0 -
-
There are no countries that consume as much sugar as we do and have low obesity rates...
You have obviously never been to France and visited a patisserie.0 -
ignore sugar intake, calorie deficit is everything0
-
Here's a link to an NPR article that includes information on a recent clinical study:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss
The study (published in a peer-reviewed journal) it reports on took two groups of people and put one group on a low-carbohydrate diet and the other group on a low-fat diet. The diets were similar in caloric value. (I can't access the full journal article, so I'm relying on reports from people who've read the article for that last bit. It's not in the abstract, which seems like an oversight.)
At the end of a year, the group on the low-carb diet had lost significantly more weight than the group on the low-fat diet. But both groups had lost weight.
Obviously, there are a number of factors that could have caused the difference. Maybe the low-carb group was better at sticking to its caloric goals. And it's just one study, but it looks like a good one. I imagine there are other studies, but I don't have time to find out right now.
Also, I don't want to get into an argument with anybody. I heard this study discussed on NPR, and the doctors who were talking about it made a distinction between losing weight in the first place (which they agreed can always be done by consuming fewer calories than you expend) and long-term health. They were also talking about other studies that measured other health outcomes.
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily correct to dismiss out of hand anyone who says that the composition of your calories matters. While I believe that CICO is correct, it's not obviously impossible that your macro breakdown has no effect on the CO part of that equation.
Also, for many of us (myself included) weight loss is the most significant way to improve our health outcomes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems associated with eating too much of one thing or another. I'm guessing that Mr. Twinkie would have eventually felt not so great.
Finally, regardless of whether low-carb/low-sugar is the best way to lose weight, you can still eat sugar. But surely no one is claiming that eating a Blizzard every day for the rest of your life is the secret to longevity.0 -
Wow lots of bad info on this thread.... For those that eat too much sugar and still lose weight it depends on how fast you eat it. If you repeatedly eat 40 - 50g of sugar in one sitting (cake, pie, soda every day) and nothing else all day you will gain weight. If you drink iced tea and gatorade throughout the day and eventually exceed your limit you'll be fine because your liver had more time to process the sugar. Fiber matters too. Sugar consumed with most fruits almost doesn't count because of the amount of fiber that comes with it.
Wrong. I once ate a medium DQ Blizzard every day for a week and lost a pound and a half by the end of it. Pretty sure that is more than 40 g of sugar.
Just checked, they're 93 g sugar.
More bad info... If you have a article or study that says going to DQ every day is not detrimental to fitness please post it. It will literally change my life!
That pound and a half could have been muscle, organ tissue, bone mass, or even just water. If you were doing cardio that week my guess is that you lost muscle which slowed down your metabolism and water weight which you gained back as soon as you ate something with salt in it.
I can assure you that your body stored most of that sugar as fat. Although, 93g x 5 calories per gram x 7 days is only 2300 calories or so. Not enough to register on the scale anyway. But if this works for you by all means keep at it.
I make sure to eat plenty of protein and incorporate strength training along with my cardio to preserve muscle mass. I'm not an idiot. And the loss, as with my entire loss as a whole, stayed off, because guess what? I continued to eat at a deficit or maintenance. That's how it works, after all.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Here's a link to an NPR article that includes information on a recent clinical study:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss
The study (published in a peer-reviewed journal) it reports on took two groups of people and put one group on a low-carbohydrate diet and the other group on a low-fat diet. The diets were similar in caloric value. (I can't access the full journal article, so I'm relying on reports from people who've read the article for that last bit. It's not in the abstract, which seems like an oversight.)
At the end of a year, the group on the low-carb diet had lost significantly more weight than the group on the low-fat diet. But both groups had lost weight.
Obviously, there are a number of factors that could have caused the difference. Maybe the low-carb group was better at sticking to its caloric goals. And it's just one study, but it looks like a good one. I imagine there are other studies, but I don't have time to find out right now.
Also, I don't want to get into an argument with anybody. I heard this study discussed on NPR, and the doctors who were talking about it made a distinction between losing weight in the first place (which they agreed can always be done by consuming fewer calories than you expend) and long-term health. They were also talking about other studies that measured other health outcomes.
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily correct to dismiss out of hand anyone who says that the composition of your calories matters. While I believe that CICO is correct, it's not obviously impossible that your macro breakdown has no effect on the CO part of that equation.
Also, for many of us (myself included) weight loss is the most significant way to improve our health outcomes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems associated with eating too much of one thing or another. I'm guessing that Mr. Twinkie would have eventually felt not so great.
Finally, regardless of whether low-carb/low-sugar is the best way to lose weight, you can still eat sugar. But surely no one is claiming that eating a Blizzard every day for the rest of your life is the secret to longevity.
No, but it also doesn't do anything to impair or worsen my health.0 -
Completely false. As a matter of fact I have my own ice cream, gelato and sweets group here on MFP. Sorry to burst your
everyone stop eating sugar of any sort forever, said no one EVER!
Obvious troll is obvious
you even gave the classic troll line - I'd post studies but no one would read them, followed by asking questions instead of answering those aimed at you
4/10
edit: to fix quote boxes
Not trolling. What haven't I answered?0 -
Wow lots of bad info on this thread.... For those that eat too much sugar and still lose weight it depends on how fast you eat it. If you repeatedly eat 40 - 50g of sugar in one sitting (cake, pie, soda every day) and nothing else all day you will gain weight. If you drink iced tea and gatorade throughout the day and eventually exceed your limit you'll be fine because your liver had more time to process the sugar. Fiber matters too. Sugar consumed with most fruits almost doesn't count because of the amount of fiber that comes with it.
Wrong. I once ate a medium DQ Blizzard every day for a week and lost a pound and a half by the end of it. Pretty sure that is more than 40 g of sugar.
Just checked, they're 93 g sugar.
More bad info... If you have a article or study that says going to DQ every day is not detrimental to fitness please post it. It will literally change my life!
That pound and a half could have been muscle, organ tissue, bone mass, or even just water. If you were doing cardio that week my guess is that you lost muscle which slowed down your metabolism and water weight which you gained back as soon as you ate something with salt in it.
I can assure you that your body stored most of that sugar as fat. Although, 93g x 5 calories per gram x 7 days is only 2300 calories or so. Not enough to register on the scale anyway. But if this works for you by all means keep at it.
I make sure to eat plenty of protein and incorporate strength training along with my cardio to preserve muscle mass. I'm not an idiot. And the loss, as with my entire loss as a whole, stayed off, because guess what? I continued to eat at a deficit or maintenance. That's how it works, after all.
I said the same thing. Maybe I just worded it wrong? Sugar is not bad and sugar stored as fat can be burned later. Protein and fiber help slow sugar absorption. Did I miss anything?0 -
Here's a link to an NPR article that includes information on a recent clinical study:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss
The study (published in a peer-reviewed journal) it reports on took two groups of people and put one group on a low-carbohydrate diet and the other group on a low-fat diet. The diets were similar in caloric value. (I can't access the full journal article, so I'm relying on reports from people who've read the article for that last bit. It's not in the abstract, which seems like an oversight.)
At the end of a year, the group on the low-carb diet had lost significantly more weight than the group on the low-fat diet. But both groups had lost weight.
Obviously, there are a number of factors that could have caused the difference. Maybe the low-carb group was better at sticking to its caloric goals. And it's just one study, but it looks like a good one. I imagine there are other studies, but I don't have time to find out right now.
Also, I don't want to get into an argument with anybody. I heard this study discussed on NPR, and the doctors who were talking about it made a distinction between losing weight in the first place (which they agreed can always be done by consuming fewer calories than you expend) and long-term health. They were also talking about other studies that measured other health outcomes.
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily correct to dismiss out of hand anyone who says that the composition of your calories matters. While I believe that CICO is correct, it's not obviously impossible that your macro breakdown has no effect on the CO part of that equation.
Also, for many of us (myself included) weight loss is the most significant way to improve our health outcomes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems associated with eating too much of one thing or another. I'm guessing that Mr. Twinkie would have eventually felt not so great.
Finally, regardless of whether low-carb/low-sugar is the best way to lose weight, you can still eat sugar. But surely no one is claiming that eating a Blizzard every day for the rest of your life is the secret to longevity.
No, but it also doesn't do anything to impair or worsen my health.
No offense but you're also 21. Your metabolism is as fast as it will ever be. Try regular trips to DQ in your 30's or 40's.
0 -
Wow lots of bad info on this thread.... For those that eat too much sugar and still lose weight it depends on how fast you eat it. If you repeatedly eat 40 - 50g of sugar in one sitting (cake, pie, soda every day) and nothing else all day you will gain weight. If you drink iced tea and gatorade throughout the day and eventually exceed your limit you'll be fine because your liver had more time to process the sugar. Fiber matters too. Sugar consumed with most fruits almost doesn't count because of the amount of fiber that comes with it.
Of course, exercise at that level requires a lot of "fast" energy and there's nothing "faster" than a large amount of sugar and /or starch. Those are very "available" calories unlike other calories, such as more "complex" carbohydrates that must be separated from fiber or digested for some time such as protein and fat so that the calories show up in the bloodstream more gradually.
Bad info I'm reading is coming from you.
So for the past year and a half I've lost a little weight, and I've gone over on sugar almost every day of it. I eat dessert daily. I eat cake, pie, brownies, ice cream... guess I will gain it all back
It's not that simple. I'm not saying never eat sugar, just that sugar without fiber is stored as fat because of how fast the sugar goes into the blood stream. This is the basis for things like the Adkins diet. Not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat now. I'd post links if I thought people would read them.
I normally consume about 500-600 calories of sugar per hour when I am cycling. Sometimes I cycle for well over 6 hours. At 6 hours, let's say that I consume 3600 calories. You are honestly saying that during that time, I put on 1lb of fat (rougly)?
Of course energy burning at that rate requires "fast" carbohydrates (such as that in sugar and starch). The "slow" carbohydrates are encased in fiber and it takes longer to "get at them" (and some of the carbohydrates can pass right out of the body since they are encased in fiber). Fats and proteins take longer to digest and are thus released to the blood stream more gradually.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Here's a link to an NPR article that includes information on a recent clinical study:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss
The study (published in a peer-reviewed journal) it reports on took two groups of people and put one group on a low-carbohydrate diet and the other group on a low-fat diet. The diets were similar in caloric value. (I can't access the full journal article, so I'm relying on reports from people who've read the article for that last bit. It's not in the abstract, which seems like an oversight.)
At the end of a year, the group on the low-carb diet had lost significantly more weight than the group on the low-fat diet. But both groups had lost weight.
Obviously, there are a number of factors that could have caused the difference. Maybe the low-carb group was better at sticking to its caloric goals. And it's just one study, but it looks like a good one. I imagine there are other studies, but I don't have time to find out right now.
Also, I don't want to get into an argument with anybody. I heard this study discussed on NPR, and the doctors who were talking about it made a distinction between losing weight in the first place (which they agreed can always be done by consuming fewer calories than you expend) and long-term health. They were also talking about other studies that measured other health outcomes.
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily correct to dismiss out of hand anyone who says that the composition of your calories matters. While I believe that CICO is correct, it's not obviously impossible that your macro breakdown has no effect on the CO part of that equation.
Also, for many of us (myself included) weight loss is the most significant way to improve our health outcomes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems associated with eating too much of one thing or another. I'm guessing that Mr. Twinkie would have eventually felt not so great.
Finally, regardless of whether low-carb/low-sugar is the best way to lose weight, you can still eat sugar. But surely no one is claiming that eating a Blizzard every day for the rest of your life is the secret to longevity.
No, but it also doesn't do anything to impair or worsen my health.
Not yet, anyway.
Here is a quote from an article (that discusses a study done in 1973 and other subsequent studies) that is linked below: "...The researchers confirmed that sugar did not reduce the population of neutrophils BUT RATHER THEIR FUNCTION. (emphasis mine) This study showed that simple carbohydrates such as sugar can depress the immune system for hours. Complex carbohydrates, on the other, do not affect the immune system in this way. The observed inhibition of white blood cell phagocytosis in this study suggests that those who regularly consume simple sugars every day may continuously suffer from impaired immune functions. It is also worth noting that the researchers only observed the effect of sugar on the immune system for 5 hours. Therefore, it is possible that sugars may depress the immune system further than 5 hours..."
http://www.progressivehealth.com/does-eating-sugar-increase-your-risk-of-influenza.htm0 -
Here's a link to an NPR article that includes information on a recent clinical study:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss
The study (published in a peer-reviewed journal) it reports on took two groups of people and put one group on a low-carbohydrate diet and the other group on a low-fat diet. The diets were similar in caloric value. (I can't access the full journal article, so I'm relying on reports from people who've read the article for that last bit. It's not in the abstract, which seems like an oversight.)
At the end of a year, the group on the low-carb diet had lost significantly more weight than the group on the low-fat diet. But both groups had lost weight.
Obviously, there are a number of factors that could have caused the difference. Maybe the low-carb group was better at sticking to its caloric goals. And it's just one study, but it looks like a good one. I imagine there are other studies, but I don't have time to find out right now.
Also, I don't want to get into an argument with anybody. I heard this study discussed on NPR, and the doctors who were talking about it made a distinction between losing weight in the first place (which they agreed can always be done by consuming fewer calories than you expend) and long-term health. They were also talking about other studies that measured other health outcomes.
All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily correct to dismiss out of hand anyone who says that the composition of your calories matters. While I believe that CICO is correct, it's not obviously impossible that your macro breakdown has no effect on the CO part of that equation.
Also, for many of us (myself included) weight loss is the most significant way to improve our health outcomes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems associated with eating too much of one thing or another. I'm guessing that Mr. Twinkie would have eventually felt not so great.
Finally, regardless of whether low-carb/low-sugar is the best way to lose weight, you can still eat sugar. But surely no one is claiming that eating a Blizzard every day for the rest of your life is the secret to longevity.
No, but it also doesn't do anything to impair or worsen my health.
No offense but you're also 21. Your metabolism is as fast as it will ever be. Try regular trips to DQ in your 30's or 40's.
Ohai!0 -
Unless you have a medical issue that causes you to be insulin resistant, then there is no reason to worry about it, and you do not have to avoid it. Diabetics, of course. People with fatty liver, women with PCOS, women in menopause, can be insulin resistant.
In addition, most obese women are leptin-resistant. Leptin resistance precedes and predicts insulin resistance if nothing is done to stop the train from moving in that direction. Both are a function of high blood glucose. There are hormonal / metabolic factors that predispose even well-exercised, moderate eaters to have high blood glucose.0 -
Adding theseLeaving this here as I could not see it posted yet:
http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
http://skylertanner.com/2009/12/31/obese-metabolic-ward-studies/
http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-to-stop-blaming-insulin-for-fat-storage/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
Yes insulin without excess sugar isn't bad. It's just a hormone. That's like saying pumping gas with a lit match is the same as pumping gas without one. Also, is it just me or is defending sugar on a weight loss site a bit like defending social drinking at an AA meeting? I mean if sugar were completely harmless at least some of us (not me, I"m a pizza and steak guy) wouldn't be here.
Can we maybe post one link from a major news outlet, university or government agency? Or at least something that lists or at least hints at it's sources? What are weightology.net and bodyrecomposition.com?0 -
Unless you have a medical issue that causes you to be insulin resistant, then there is no reason to worry about it, and you do not have to avoid it. Diabetics, of course. People with fatty liver, women with PCOS, women in menopause, can be insulin resistant.
In addition, most obese women are leptin-resistant. Leptin resistance precedes and predicts insulin resistance if nothing is done to stop the train from moving in that direction. Both are a function of high blood glucose. There are hormonal / metabolic factors that predispose even well-exercised, moderate eaters to have high blood glucose.
Fine... Sugar doesn't cause insulin resistance, but it is linked to obesity (hopefully no one will argue with me there..) and obesity is linked to insulin resistance. (note the link from a reputable source instead of healthy_sounding_domain.com)
Some experts believe obesity, especially excess fat around the waist, is a primary cause of insulin resistance. Scientists used to think that fat tissue functioned solely as energy storage. However, studies have shown that belly fat produces hormones and other substances that can cause serious health problems such as insulin resistance, high blood pressure, imbalanced cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Belly fat plays a part in developing chronic, or long-lasting, inflammation in the body. Chronic inflammation can damage the body over time, without any signs or symptoms. Scientists have found that complex interactions in fat tissue draw immune cells to the area and trigger low-level chronic inflammation. This inflammation can contribute to the development of insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and CVD. Studies show that losing the weight can reduce insulin resistance and prevent or delay type 2 diabetes.
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/#resistance0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Wow lots of bad info on this thread.... For those that eat too much sugar and still lose weight it depends on how fast you eat it. If you repeatedly eat 40 - 50g of sugar in one sitting (cake, pie, soda every day) and nothing else all day you will gain weight. If you drink iced tea and gatorade throughout the day and eventually exceed your limit you'll be fine because your liver had more time to process the sugar. Fiber matters too. Sugar consumed with most fruits almost doesn't count because of the amount of fiber that comes with it.
Of course, exercise at that level requires a lot of "fast" energy and there's nothing "faster" than a large amount of sugar and /or starch. Those are very "available" calories unlike other calories, such as more "complex" carbohydrates that must be separated from fiber or digested for some time such as protein and fat so that the calories show up in the bloodstream more gradually.
Bad info I'm reading is coming from you.
So for the past year and a half I've lost a little weight, and I've gone over on sugar almost every day of it. I eat dessert daily. I eat cake, pie, brownies, ice cream... guess I will gain it all back
It's not that simple. I'm not saying never eat sugar, just that sugar without fiber is stored as fat because of how fast the sugar goes into the blood stream. This is the basis for things like the Adkins diet. Not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat now. I'd post links if I thought people would read them.
I normally consume about 500-600 calories of sugar per hour when I am cycling. Sometimes I cycle for well over 6 hours. At 6 hours, let's say that I consume 3600 calories. You are honestly saying that during that time, I put on 1lb of fat (rougly)?
You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour. If you eat the sugar WHILE you're exercising things work differently. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as energy gels.
Hopefully you're just trying to get a rise out of me. AKA. trolling. But why would someone fit enough to cycle for six hours try to convince others to eat sugar? Some people like the OP are just starting out and come here for information.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Adding theseLeaving this here as I could not see it posted yet:
http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
http://skylertanner.com/2009/12/31/obese-metabolic-ward-studies/
http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-to-stop-blaming-insulin-for-fat-storage/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
Yes insulin without excess sugar isn't bad. It's just a hormone. That's like saying pumping gas with a lit match is the same as pumping gas without one. Also, is it just me or is defending sugar on a weight loss site a bit like defending social drinking at an AA meeting? I mean if sugar were completely harmless at least some of us (not me, I"m a pizza and steak guy) wouldn't be here.
Can we maybe post one link from a major news outlet, university or government agency? Or at least something that lists or at least hints at it's sources? What are weightology.net and bodyrecomposition.com?
Why don't you take the time to actually read them (and, you know, click the links that take you to peer reviewed studies).
Also, if you think you can use an article from a major news outlet as a basis for a conclusion, I would strongly suggest you do not.
And you analogy is totally off base. Its nothing like it...at all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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