Calorie Deficits and Sugar

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Froody2

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.

I'm sorry, what? Blood would become too dense and you'd die? The only thing I'm aware of that can make your blood "dense" is polycythaemia or a clotting disorder, possibly. In what way would sugar kill you if it's not processed?

keegan2149

No you didn't read anything I wrote. Which one of us is trolling again?

Well, you started us off with this gem:

The general consensus is that you can still gain weight even if you are at a very high calorie deficit.

And now you're agreeing with this:

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 which is it? :huh:

Sorry I meant gain fat which is still true depending on the circumstances. My point was that just because you are maintaining an energy deficit doesn't mean that everything is ok.

Can you provide any example where people are shown to accumulate body fat over time when calories in < calories out?

I can't find a link. Calorie deficits just mean your body has to burn something. If you're eating too much sugar and burning calories your body can and will use your muscles as fuel. That means a slower metabolism even though the scale may be going in the right direction. You won't end up with the round appearance commonly associated with fat gain but you will do your body more harm than good.

Most people assume they burn all of their calories at the gym which is also not true. If you build muscle and then do cardio to stimulate it it will burn fat 24 hours per day. If you just depend on a calorie deficit you will not build the mechanisms that lead to long term weight loss. Most people gain weight as soon as they stop exercising or counting calories because they aren't aware of what is really going on with their bodies.

This link partially explains it: (beware of the peanut gallery)

Because your body can only handle so much energy in one sitting (just like you can’t overfill your gas tank for 1,000 mile trip) hardly eating anything all day and then eating most of your calories in one sitting can cause problems:
Your blood sugar levels fluctuate instead of holding steady, which can result in a loss of lean body mass. In other words, it’s not fat that’s being lost but potentially muscle. And we don’t want to lose muscle. Lowering your lean body mass means your body burns less calories. Not good.
Eating when your blood sugar is low (because you’ve hardly eaten anything all day) causes you to release more insulin — which means more fat is produced.
You then get into a vicious cycle of your body losing lean body mass, producing more fat, and burning less calories.

http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/can-i-eat-all-my-calories-for-the-day-in-one-meal-and-still-lose-weight-649.html

keegan2149

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.

I'm sorry, what? Blood would become too dense and you'd die? The only thing I'm aware of that can make your blood "dense" is polycythaemia or a clotting disorder, possibly. In what way would sugar kill you if it's not processed?

It's a side effect of diabetes. I was paraphrasing to try to explain why sugar isn't just used as fuel and is converted to fat when there is too much in the blood stream.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/expert-blog/high-blood-sugar/bgp-20056519

Blood sugar actually coats red blood cells (hemoglobin), causing them to become stiff. These "sticky cells" interfere with blood circulation, causing cholesterol to build up on the inside of your blood vessels. It can take months to years for the damage to your body to appear. The fragile blood vessels in your eyes, kidneys and feet are most susceptible, so problems are usually noticed first in those areas.

keegan2149

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.

At what point would the bold occur? Would it be at calorie surplus levels?

No. Your body can only turn so much sugar into fuel (glucose/glycogen) at a time. The rest is stored even if you're starving yourself.

http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/can-i-eat-all-my-calories-for-the-day-in-one-meal-and-still-lose-weight-649.html

Because your body can only handle so much energy in one sitting (just like you can’t overfill your gas tank for 1,000 mile trip) hardly eating anything all day and then eating most of your calories in one sitting can cause problems:
Your blood sugar levels fluctuate instead of holding steady, which can result in a loss of lean body mass. In other words, it’s not fat that’s being lost but potentially muscle. And we don’t want to lose muscle. Lowering your lean body mass means your body burns less calories. Not good.
Eating when your blood sugar is low (because you’ve hardly eaten anything all day) causes you to release more insulin — which means more fat is produced.
You then get into a vicious cycle of your body losing lean body mass, producing more fat, and burning less calories.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Mr_Knight

Because your body can only handle so much energy in one sitting (just like you can’t overfill your gas tank for 1,000 mile trip) hardly eating anything all day and then eating most of your calories in one sitting can cause problems:

Those issues are only meaningful for people who are highly active.

For most people, most of the time, they're firmly in the noise.

psuLemon

The pancreas prevents it from happening in unless you have diabetes. Again the point is that all calories are not the same and just having a calorie deficit doesn't mean you'll get the results you're looking for. There's a reason sugar is stored as fat more quickly than other nutrients. I find it interesting that people who have lost 70-80 pounds are suggesting they did so without any concern for their sugar intake.

The problem is, you aren't understand the full context of the diet. No one in this forum suggest an entire diet of sugar. In fact, if you look at most of the threads, you will notice many of us suggest lowering your carb intake in favor of protein and fats. Additionally, you will see many of us suggest reducing cardio in favor of resistance training. The fact is, we all advocate for a balanced diet. We suggest increasing proteins to help with muscle retention and satiety. We suggest increased fats for satiety and improvements to skin and mental health. So we all do understand what is required to get the results that you want. And honestly, have you looked at the pictures of half the people you are saying the first bold statement too?

IRT your second statement, we don't concern ourselves with sugar because it's not necessary. Primary concerns are calories and exercise routine, followed by macronutrients. Sugar is a carb, it will be processed as a carb. And as long as it doesn't take away from other important macronutrients, it doesn't matter. Sugar is the new Fat. There is no reason to fear it but understand how it affects the diet overall. But if you want to see science, below is a good place to start.

http://www.fitnessbaddies.com/your-problem-with-sugar-is-the-problem-with-sugar/

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

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

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full