Calorie Deficits and Sugar

1246

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Some people like the OP are just starting out and come here for information.

    And that is the reason (as well as for other readers) that people try to stop the mis-information.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    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.
    You obviously don't know much about nutrition and how specific training works.

    Can you show us your progress so far?

    As others have said correlation is not causation, but I'll bite. I've only lost 5 pounds so far. I just started. A year or so ago I lost about 70 pounds which is when I learned about fitness. Feel free to take that and run with it. Just out of curiosity what did I say that you didn't agree with? Cycling doesn't burn 100 calories per hour or that eating sugar while exercising is different than eating sugar while resting? Assuming of course you didn't just want to compare progress bars since I have less than 100 posts here.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Well dang, I've been doing the wrong exercise then! :laugh:
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    Leaving this here as I could not see it posted yet:

    http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
    Adding these
    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.

    I read the weightology one actually. It defended insulin as if that tells the whole tale. Like I said the difference between insulin with and without sugar is similar to the difference between pumping gas with and without a lit match. My point was those articles are written in a tone that obviously defends sugar intake as normal. It focuses on insulin as if insulin just appears by itself. It disingenuous and misleading for those who can't read between the lines. Again what is exactly is everyones point? That a calorie is a calorie? That sugar intake can just be ignored? That all sugar consumed can be used as fuel? You folks can eat what you want. I'll be a little less incredulous when we're not leading the world in childhood obesity and other food related illnesses.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Leaving this here as I could not see it posted yet:

    http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
    Adding these
    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.

    I read the weightology one actually. It defended insulin as if that tells the whole tale. Like I said the difference between insulin with and without sugar is similar to the difference between pumping gas with and without a lit match. My point was those articles are written in a tone that obviously defends sugar intake as normal. It focuses on insulin as if insulin just appears by itself. It disingenuous and misleading for those who can't read between the lines. Again what is exactly is everyones point? That a calorie is a calorie? That sugar intake can just be ignored? That all sugar consumed can be used as fuel? You folks can eat what you want. I'll be a little less incredulous when we're not leading the world in childhood obesity and other food related illnesses.

    I responded to your comment - that you wanted to see what you consider credible sources - they point to peer reviewed studies. Also, I am not sure how you are reading what you think you are reading. The weightology one that you say you have read does not even focus on sugar.

    Also, how can you say that you read it when you said the part bolded above? The one you say you read even hyper-linked them.

    And no, that is not what people are saying.

    And its still a bad analogy.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?

    Because essentially all I am doing by eating the sugar is creating a deficit while I eat it. So if sugar is still stored as fat automatically, what is the difference if I am burning an immense amount of calories while eating an abnormal amount of sugar compared to someone who eats a moderate amount yet burns it off during the day?
  • ffitnesspal23
    ffitnesspal23 Posts: 1
    Can anyone explain to me how a cup of tea with low fat milk [no sugar] has been allocated 3 under sugar on my food diary, while a coffee, with low fat milk and one sugar, attracts nothing under sugar?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Can anyone explain to me how a cup of tea with low fat milk [no sugar] has been allocated 3 under sugar on my food diary, while a coffee, with low fat milk and one sugar, attracts nothing under sugar?

    Because users make a lot of the database entries - and they are inaccurate much of the time.

    Try to find the ones without the asterisks at the beginning - and you will have to enter the coffee (if you want to) and the milk and the sugar separately if you want greater accuracy.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?
    And would he be storing fat during a 6 hour cycle?

    Of course not. However, stating that no fat is created during 6 hours of continuous exercise proves nothing about sugar intake in general. It's like examining dry skin while swimming.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    Can anyone explain to me how a cup of tea with low fat milk [no sugar] has been allocated 3 under sugar on my food diary, while a coffee, with low fat milk and one sugar, attracts nothing under sugar?

    Because users make a lot of the database entries - and they are inaccurate much of the time.

    Try to find the ones without the asterisks at the beginning - and you will have to enter the coffee (if you want to) and the milk and the sugar separately if you want greater accuracy.

    Yea the food db here needs some love. I try to correct or at least mark the bad entries. I think the ones marked generic come from the USDA. Either way they seem to be accurate when applicable.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?

    Because essentially all I am doing by eating the sugar is creating a deficit while I eat it. So if sugar is still stored as fat automatically, what is the difference if I am burning an immense amount of calories while eating an abnormal amount of sugar compared to someone who eats a moderate amount yet burns it off during the day?

    You didn't read everything I wrote. Sugar is stored when the body can't process it. Otherwise the blood would become too dense and you'd die. Triggering this process too often leads to health problems. Obviously eating sugar while exercising heavily would not create this conditions.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • sweetpea03b
    sweetpea03b Posts: 1,123 Member
    It really comes down to ADDED sugar. You're not supposed to consume more than 32g of added sugar/day. This means your coffee, yogurt and other things that they add sugar to. Of course, there is natural sugar in fruit, veggies, etc. I think a lot of it is genetic. I have diabetics in my family and I seem to be VERY sensitive to extra sugar because when I really watch my added sugar intake I lose much easier. That being said, the more you have to lose the less little things like this matter because you can make small changes with big results... but once you get down to that last 20-30lbs it will matter more. Good luck!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lemonsnowdrop
    lemonsnowdrop Posts: 1,298 Member
    It really comes down to ADDED sugar. You're not supposed to consume more than 32g of added sugar/day. This means your coffee, yogurt and other things that they add sugar to. Of course, there is natural sugar in fruit, veggies, etc. I think a lot of it is genetic. I have diabetics in my family and I seem to be VERY sensitive to extra sugar because when I really watch my added sugar intake I lose much easier. That being said, the more you have to lose the less little things like this matter because you can make small changes with big results... but once you get down to that last 20-30lbs it will matter more. Good luck!

    I lost the last 10 or so pounds without tracking sugar and I'm certain I went every every day. It didn't seem to matter at all.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    I'm having a hard time getting a straight answer in regards to calorie deficits and sugar consumption.

    I've seen many people, including on this site, claim that sugar doesn't matter so long as you hit your macros (mainly protein and fat) and stay at your caloric deficit.

    Others claim that the spike in your insulin levels from the sugar causes your body to store fat, and even if you're in a deficit, you will not be able to lose fat because of this. Some claim that even heavy weight training and a caloric deficit will not over-rule sugar consumption that is above 40-50gs.

    So which one is it?

    Excessive glucose in the blood stream will spike your insulin levels, as processing the glucose and removing it as quick as possible from the bloodstream is one of the many things insulin does.

    If the glucose in the blood cannot be used as instant fuel it will be stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen, The bodies ability to store glycogen is very limited and once stores are full the glucose is converted into adipose tissue and stored as body fat.

    This is not an issue when eating in a calorie deficit, as your body will be using body fat to some degree throughout the day to fuel itself.

    So does glucose get stored as body fat whilst eating in a calorie deficit (depending on the quantities you are eating it in and how active you are at that particular time) then yes.

    Does it make you fat whilst eating in a calorie deficit - absolutely not, as your body will utilizing stored body fat for fuel throughout the day.

    IMO it's not so much about burning more calories than you consume, its more about burning more body fat than you store!
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    It really comes down to ADDED sugar. You're not supposed to consume more than 32g of added sugar/day. This means your coffee, yogurt and other things that they add sugar to. Of course, there is natural sugar in fruit, veggies, etc. I think a lot of it is genetic. I have diabetics in my family and I seem to be VERY sensitive to extra sugar because when I really watch my added sugar intake I lose much easier. That being said, the more you have to lose the less little things like this matter because you can make small changes with big results... but once you get down to that last 20-30lbs it will matter more. Good luck!
    Why are we not supposed to eat more than 32g of added sugar? Who said that? What happens if we do?

    Why have so many of us continued to eat sugar, have hit our weight goal and even surpassed it?

    Keep in mind I'm not diabetic so please don't respond with some diabetes stuff.

    It's not exactly 32g since everyone's limits are different. The generally accepted standard is the one released by the American Heart Association. Obviously those involved in endurance sports will have much higher limits.

    http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090824/heart-group-limit-added-sugars-diet
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    It really comes down to ADDED sugar. You're not supposed to consume more than 32g of added sugar/day. This means your coffee, yogurt and other things that they add sugar to. Of course, there is natural sugar in fruit, veggies, etc. I think a lot of it is genetic. I have diabetics in my family and I seem to be VERY sensitive to extra sugar because when I really watch my added sugar intake I lose much easier. That being said, the more you have to lose the less little things like this matter because you can make small changes with big results... but once you get down to that last 20-30lbs it will matter more. Good luck!
    Why are we not supposed to eat more than 32g of added sugar? Who said that? What happens if we do?

    Why have so many of us continued to eat sugar, have hit our weight goal and even surpassed it?

    Keep in mind I'm not diabetic so please don't respond with some diabetes stuff.

    It's not exactly 32g since everyone's limits are different. The generally accepted standard is the one released by the American Heart Association. Obviously those involved in endurance sports will have much higher limits.

    http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090824/heart-group-limit-added-sugars-diet
    Go back and answer the questions you were asked instead of trolling every post.

    I'm tired of arguing and this isn't trolling. You asked for info and I gave it to you.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    I'm having a hard time getting a straight answer in regards to calorie deficits and sugar consumption.

    I've seen many people, including on this site, claim that sugar doesn't matter so long as you hit your macros (mainly protein and fat) and stay at your caloric deficit.

    Others claim that the spike in your insulin levels from the sugar causes your body to store fat, and even if you're in a deficit, you will not be able to lose fat because of this. Some claim that even heavy weight training and a caloric deficit will not over-rule sugar consumption that is above 40-50gs.

    So which one is it?

    Excessive glucose in the blood stream will spike your insulin levels, as processing the glucose and removing it as quick as possible from the bloodstream is one of the many things insulin does.

    If the glucose in the blood cannot be used as instant fuel it will be stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen, The bodies ability to store glycogen is very limited and once stores are full the glucose is converted into adipose tissue and stored as body fat.

    This is not an issue when eating in a calorie deficit, as your body will be using body fat to some degree throughout the day to fuel itself.

    So does glucose get stored as body fat whilst eating in a calorie deficit (depending on the quantities you are eating it in and how active you are at that particular time) then yes.

    Does it make you fat whilst eating in a calorie deficit - absolutely not, as your body will utilizing stored body fat for fuel throughout the day.

    IMO it's not so much about burning more calories than you consume, its more about burning more body fat than you store!

    well said!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    I'm having a hard time getting a straight answer in regards to calorie deficits and sugar consumption.

    I've seen many people, including on this site, claim that sugar doesn't matter so long as you hit your macros (mainly protein and fat) and stay at your caloric deficit.

    Others claim that the spike in your insulin levels from the sugar causes your body to store fat, and even if you're in a deficit, you will not be able to lose fat because of this. Some claim that even heavy weight training and a caloric deficit will not over-rule sugar consumption that is above 40-50gs.

    So which one is it?

    Excessive glucose in the blood stream will spike your insulin levels, as processing the glucose and removing it as quick as possible from the bloodstream is one of the many things insulin does.

    If the glucose in the blood cannot be used as instant fuel it will be stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen, The bodies ability to store glycogen is very limited and once stores are full the glucose is converted into adipose tissue and stored as body fat.

    This is not an issue when eating in a calorie deficit, as your body will be using body fat to some degree throughout the day to fuel itself.

    So does glucose get stored as body fat whilst eating in a calorie deficit (depending on the quantities you are eating it in and how active you are at that particular time) then yes.

    Does it make you fat whilst eating in a calorie deficit - absolutely not, as your body will utilizing stored body fat for fuel throughout the day.

    IMO it's not so much about burning more calories than you consume, its more about burning more body fat than you store!

    well said!
    Lol. You just agreed with a post that contradicted everything you've been spewing.

    Trolling fail.

    No you didn't read anything I wrote. Which one of us is trolling again?
  • Michifan
    Michifan Posts: 95 Member
    I know there is a lot of people here with absolutely no license giving medical advice - but all calories are not equal, all carbohydrates are not equal. Same with fats and proteins. They are general groupings and the science is so much more complicated that it's getting laughable when people make it so generic.

    Sugar does have an effect on virtually all people regardless of the caloric intake. Find a medical journal that would say differently. No sugar or too much sugar is a very broad band. But between the two there are differences with the exact same number of calories on the human body.

    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.

Categories