Why is sugar the devil?
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »lolabluola wrote: »lolabluola wrote: »lolabluola wrote: »It's fine probably for most people that can control themselves around it - totally wasn't me - so to lose weight i just avoided it as much as possible and tried to get as much veggies and stuff in place sugar and breads - now that i did that for about two years and lost weight and run and work out - I've learned some control my insane sugar love and can for the most part moderate my intake
I'm not even exaggerating, i would crave sugar and bread it was bad. 
probably not the most nutritious thing 
why is bread "bad"..?
you realize that vegetables are a carb and,hence, contain sugar, right?
I said the way I Craved bread and sugar was bad... like embarrassingly bad! not that IT was bad!! LOL
I think everyone knows veggies are carbs .... hmmm
just another way for me to create a calorie deficit and lose weight, worked for me as a way to do it.
nit pick much hahah
jk
totally shouldn't post on these! haha
I just find it interesting that you are acting like one form of sugar is superior to another...vegetable good, other sugar "bad"....
How are you getting that from what she is saying?
thanks! I was stumped too!
because you state that you eat vegetables over bread, the implication is that the vegetable card is better than the bread carb...
I just think people get into trouble when you start labeling certain foods, macros, etc as good and bad...at the end of the day they are all just energy that your body utilizes for certain functions...
too much energy you gain weight; too little you lose weight...etc
I eat bread, and sugar, and potatoes, and everything else.. but I do think this is a bit nit picky. Vegetables ARE better than bread for certain purposes: they're more nutrient and fiber rich, and they're lower in calories so you can eat them in larger quantities. When someone constantly craves bread and sugar, it IS bad for weight loss. Simply because those two usually come in high calorie packages and not being able to control yourself around them will result in ingesting extra calories.
Learning moderation is the key, but it has a learning curve, and some find it too hard. Cutting these foods out is a valid strategy for some, not because "they're bad", but because they're bad for that person's willpower.
Also, as my dietician explained to me, white bread, cookies, table sugar etc. digest fast. They are easy to access sugars your body gets to fast. Vegetables, whole grains etc. digest more slowly and are not just dumped into your system all at once.
And it is about moderation, even with "good carbs" and "good sugars" for me. I eat them slowly throughout the day. A half pear at breakfast, a slice of whole grain bread at lunch a salad at dinner... Moderation.
0 -
binging is a physiological issue that has nothing to do with food. A particular food may be something that causes you to lose control and just go nuts- but you aren't binging.baconslave wrote: »Some people have trigger foods. Eating more of them causes them to binge. That's the real world.
You can eliminate the "trigger food' all you want but until you address the issue that's causing you to eat your emotions- you aren't going to eliminate your binging- you'll just shift focus to something else.
now. I agree some people have foods they can't stop eating- like for me- I can eat one single york peppermint patty. I can eat ONE small pretzel. I can eat ONE chocolate covered espresso bean (although that one is harder than the others) I can eat ONE serving- or even one peice of a serving of many things.
Truly- I can.
But I cannot eat JUST one chip. I can't do it- at leat not right now. I LOVE chips and salsa and once I get started - it's usually two or three fistfuls later!
I will always have at least a handful- and I do the best I can to mitigate- but it would take me some real dedicated self discipline work- like bring some real focus to it- to be able to eat just ONE chip. I could do it- but I would have to work at it. it's a self control issue- and I get somethings are more managable than others.
That is completely different than binging and mindless uncontrollable eating. And I understand that if you ate ice cream when you were sad- and you had ice cream- and then you got nostalgic and then bingy b/c of whatever previously made you sad- I would get that- but it's not the actual ice cream- you have a bigger issue. You'd just shift focus to something else- you have to handle the bigger issue.0 -
I totally believe that a sugar and carbohydrate diet is bad for me. I know that when I have carbs or sugar in the morning, I crave it throughout the day. I know that if I do not continue to ingest it, I feel like crap. Protein doesn't do that to me, nor does full fat food. But sugar and carbs, oh boy. The reason being that people are prone to addictions, specifically food addictions.
In fact, my daughter's high school sent out the video below to illustrate the power of addiction, granted they are warning against substance abuse, but the way they explain dopamine is relevant as consuming carbs and sugar increases the production of neurotransmitters (which produces dopamine and serotonin) in the brain. Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge found that a carbohydrate-rich meal induces increases blood levels of insulin and increases ratios of tryptophan to large neutral amino acids and tyrosine to large neutral amino acids, according to research they published in the "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition" in January 2003. This is the feel good effect, which encourages overconsumption....
https://player.vimeo.com/video/72731647
So yeah, to me, Sugar (and carbs) are the devil.
0 -
I totally believe that a sugar and carbohydrate diet is bad for me. I know that when I have carbs or sugar in the morning, I crave it throughout the day. I know that if I do not continue to ingest it, I feel like crap. Protein doesn't do that to me, nor does full fat food. But sugar and carbs, oh boy. The reason being that people are prone to addictions, specifically food addictions.
The evidence is that some people are addicted to food in general (binging disorders and such). I'm not aware of evidence that people are actually addicted to "sugar" or "carbs." Do you binge on carrots, really?
I'm also curious about what a "sugar and carbohydrate diet" is. I'm inclined to agree that for many people a meal made up of predominately carbs with little fiber, fat, or protein is just not filling. That's why you soon crave food after, IMO, no need for an addiction claim. But IME, you don't need to eliminate these foods to avoid that response. Just have a more balanced meal. For example, I often have a vegetable omelet with some dairy and fruit on the side. (The dairy for added protein.) Under your argument, this should cause me (or someone prone to "carb addiction," anyway) to be craving all day, because it's got carbs and sugar.0 -
Oh, and once again I find the explanation of addiction as "you feel good after you eat it" to be seriously lacking in understanding.0
-
binging is a physiological issue that has nothing to do with food. A particular food may be something that causes you to lose control and just go nuts- but you aren't binging.baconslave wrote: »Some people have trigger foods. Eating more of them causes them to binge. That's the real world.
You can eliminate the "trigger food' all you want but until you address the issue that's causing you to eat your emotions- you aren't going to eliminate your binging- you'll just shift focus to something else.
now. I agree some people have foods they can't stop eating- like for me- I can eat one single york peppermint patty. I can eat ONE small pretzel. I can eat ONE chocolate covered espresso bean (although that one is harder than the others) I can eat ONE serving- or even one peice of a serving of many things.
Truly- I can.
But I cannot eat JUST one chip. I can't do it- at leat not right now. I LOVE chips and salsa and once I get started - it's usually two or three fistfuls later!
I will always have at least a handful- and I do the best I can to mitigate- but it would take me some real dedicated self discipline work- like bring some real focus to it- to be able to eat just ONE chip. I could do it- but I would have to work at it. it's a self control issue- and I get somethings are more managable than others.
That is completely different than binging and mindless uncontrollable eating. And I understand that if you ate ice cream when you were sad- and you had ice cream- and then you got nostalgic and then bingy b/c of whatever previously made you sad- I would get that- but it's not the actual ice cream- you have a bigger issue. You'd just shift focus to something else- you have to handle the bigger issue.
If the method works, why discount it off hand? Just because the overeating may have a psychological component, doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate problem. What if breaking the bad habit by not eating those foods, breaks the bad relationship with that food, and forms a better habit, strengthening the "resistance muscle" to the point that you no longer reach for that food? You are breaking the cycle of associating comfort for emotional distress with food. You are forced to find a new coping mechanism. You stop turning to the food.
Sometimes I would just eat chocolate not because I was upset, but because the sugar in my coffee wore off, and I needed more sugar high.
Once the habit and emotion/food association (or the blood sugar response is no longer in the equation) are disconnected from one another for a long period, it is possible to stay away from it. I used to not be able to see or smell chocolate of any kind without having some. When the sugar hit my bloodstream, the high was nice. I haven't had chocolate for 5 months. I make it for my kids and watch them eat it, but I don't have any. I'm cool with that. Same for pizza and french fries. I can't eat pizza without literally eating an entire pizza or french fries without polishing off the whole thing. Or I used to. Now, I eat other things until I am full. I don't feel the need to overeat. And I naturally eat a lot less. My appetite is no longer rampant.
When I'm upset, I no longer turn to food at all. I take a walk or distract myself in other ways.
Low-carb diets can help people resolve the issue. It is a tool. Some people choose to use that tool, others do not and prefer to use another method. Sure it would be nice for everyone to be able to eat just one of everything. But that isn't reality. Until the relationship with food is mended, you aren't going anywhere. Why not use a tool that works? My tool, a tool many others use as well, is breaking the association by limiting the food. Is that not a logical approach?
So I say, as long as it isn't damaging to your health (mentally or physically) do whatever works best for you.
0 -
i don't think it is at all. that fake sugar is just way way nasty tasting ... i'll stick with the real stuff0
-
binging is a physiological issue that has nothing to do with food. A particular food may be something that causes you to lose control and just go nuts- but you aren't binging.baconslave wrote: »Some people have trigger foods. Eating more of them causes them to binge. That's the real world.
You can eliminate the "trigger food' all you want but until you address the issue that's causing you to eat your emotions- you aren't going to eliminate your binging- you'll just shift focus to something else.
now. I agree some people have foods they can't stop eating- like for me- I can eat one single york peppermint patty. I can eat ONE small pretzel. I can eat ONE chocolate covered espresso bean (although that one is harder than the others) I can eat ONE serving- or even one peice of a serving of many things.
Truly- I can.
But I cannot eat JUST one chip. I can't do it- at leat not right now. I LOVE chips and salsa and once I get started - it's usually two or three fistfuls later!
I will always have at least a handful- and I do the best I can to mitigate- but it would take me some real dedicated self discipline work- like bring some real focus to it- to be able to eat just ONE chip. I could do it- but I would have to work at it. it's a self control issue- and I get somethings are more managable than others.
That is completely different than binging and mindless uncontrollable eating. And I understand that if you ate ice cream when you were sad- and you had ice cream- and then you got nostalgic and then bingy b/c of whatever previously made you sad- I would get that- but it's not the actual ice cream- you have a bigger issue. You'd just shift focus to something else- you have to handle the bigger issue.
I agree with this.
I used to think that my binges were caused by certain foods because I tended to binge on them, but now I eat those foods in normal quantities without any binge-tendencies. In fact, I haven't binged in over three months now. (I'm not sure exactly how long it's been.)
I didn't stop binging until I addressed it from a mental health standpoint, which took forever but really does work. You have to address the reasons why you binge and change some of the habits that support/surround the binging.
So anyway, sugar isn't the devil and didn't make me binge even though I usually binged on sugary foods.0 -
baconslave wrote: »
binging is a physiological issue that has nothing to do with food. A particular food may be something that causes you to lose control and just go nuts- but you aren't binging.baconslave wrote: »Some people have trigger foods. Eating more of them causes them to binge. That's the real world.
You can eliminate the "trigger food' all you want but until you address the issue that's causing you to eat your emotions- you aren't going to eliminate your binging- you'll just shift focus to something else.
now. I agree some people have foods they can't stop eating- like for me- I can eat one single york peppermint patty. I can eat ONE small pretzel. I can eat ONE chocolate covered espresso bean (although that one is harder than the others) I can eat ONE serving- or even one peice of a serving of many things.
Truly- I can.
But I cannot eat JUST one chip. I can't do it- at leat not right now. I LOVE chips and salsa and once I get started - it's usually two or three fistfuls later!
I will always have at least a handful- and I do the best I can to mitigate- but it would take me some real dedicated self discipline work- like bring some real focus to it- to be able to eat just ONE chip. I could do it- but I would have to work at it. it's a self control issue- and I get somethings are more managable than others.
That is completely different than binging and mindless uncontrollable eating. And I understand that if you ate ice cream when you were sad- and you had ice cream- and then you got nostalgic and then bingy b/c of whatever previously made you sad- I would get that- but it's not the actual ice cream- you have a bigger issue. You'd just shift focus to something else- you have to handle the bigger issue.
If the method works, why discount it off hand? Just because the overeating may have a psychological component, doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate problem. What if breaking the bad habit by not eating those foods, breaks the bad relationship with that food, and forms a better habit, strengthening the "resistance muscle" to the point that you no longer reach for that food? You are breaking the cycle of associating comfort for emotional distress with food. You are forced to find a new coping mechanism. You stop turning to the food.
Sometimes I would just eat chocolate not because I was upset, but because the sugar in my coffee wore off, and I needed more sugar high.
Once the habit and emotion/food association (or the blood sugar response is no longer in the equation) are disconnected from one another for a long period, it is possible to stay away from it. I used to not be able to see or smell chocolate of any kind without having some. When the sugar hit my bloodstream, the high was nice. I haven't had chocolate for 5 months. I make it for my kids and watch them eat it, but I don't have any. I'm cool with that. Same for pizza and french fries. I can't eat pizza without literally eating an entire pizza or french fries without polishing off the whole thing. Or I used to. Now, I eat other things until I am full. I don't feel the need to overeat. And I naturally eat a lot less. My appetite is no longer rampant.
When I'm upset, I no longer turn to food at all. I take a walk or distract myself in other ways.
Low-carb diets can help people resolve the issue. It is a tool. Some people choose to use that tool, others do not and prefer to use another method. Sure it would be nice for everyone to be able to eat just one of everything. But that isn't reality. Until the relationship with food is mended, you aren't going anywhere. Why not use a tool that works? My tool, a tool many others use as well, is breaking the association by limiting the food. Is that not a logical approach?
So I say, as long as it isn't damaging to your health (mentally or physically) do whatever works best for you.
At no point did I say it didn't work.
I just said there was a bigger issue at hand that you have to identify what it is. If you just keep blaming sugar then you never address your actual issue you wind up back in the same hole.
There is a difference from using it as a tool to help and understand there is a bigger issue verses just using it as a scape goat and trying crutch you way out of a mental problem wiht a self discipline issue.
Eating to much sugar- or for you- i.e. your chocolate is a conditioned response and a self discipline issue- it wasn't a binge issue. Those are different- and yes- using it as a tool CAN help- but you STILL- if you are binging- in the true sense of the word- having to itdentify whatever the problem is that is causing you to either eat your emotions- or eat yourself out of house and home.
That has nothing to do with conditioned repsonses and self discipline.
And I agree- you have to do what works best for you- but I think it's REALLY really important to understand there is a huge difference between:
- a conditioned response i.e: I eat sweets before bed- I have an INCREDIBLY strong urge to do so every night b/c I do it all the time)
- a lack of self discipline- can't walk past a tray of food w/o picking something
- flat out binging- uncontrollable food consumption that has zip zero zilch to do with hunger- and you often eat to the point of over
But I do agree with you- use what healthy tools you can to repair your mind and your relationship with food- HOW you do that and the path you chose is up to you and what works for you- within a safe and healthy manner.0 -
Let's add some science to the conversation.
Here's a very cool study. Best to read the article yourself, but my summary is this: researchers created a strain of mice that produce less insulin than control mice in response to a standardized diet. Both the experimental and control mice were fed the same diet and observed. The result was that the mice with (genetically programmed) lower insulin levels increased their energy expenditure, didn't get fat and also displayed a host of very positive metabolic effects like reduced systemic inflammation (which is what drives cardiovascular disease in people) and reduced liver fat accumulation.
Of course, we can't (easily) genetically modify people already born, so I'd say the next best thing is to keep your insulin levels low. The best way to do that is eat a diet low in refined carbohydrates (to reduce insulin secretion) and exercise (to increase insulin sensitivity).
It is categorically not the case that all calories are created equal and they do not all have an identical metabolic effect. To pick the easiest example, fructose must be metabolized by the liver, much like ethanol. A diet high in fructose causes non alcoholic fatty liver which can lead to insulin resistance and liver failure.0 -
baconslave wrote: »
binging is a physiological issue that has nothing to do with food. A particular food may be something that causes you to lose control and just go nuts- but you aren't binging.baconslave wrote: »Some people have trigger foods. Eating more of them causes them to binge. That's the real world.
You can eliminate the "trigger food' all you want but until you address the issue that's causing you to eat your emotions- you aren't going to eliminate your binging- you'll just shift focus to something else.
now. I agree some people have foods they can't stop eating- like for me- I can eat one single york peppermint patty. I can eat ONE small pretzel. I can eat ONE chocolate covered espresso bean (although that one is harder than the others) I can eat ONE serving- or even one peice of a serving of many things.
Truly- I can.
But I cannot eat JUST one chip. I can't do it- at leat not right now. I LOVE chips and salsa and once I get started - it's usually two or three fistfuls later!
I will always have at least a handful- and I do the best I can to mitigate- but it would take me some real dedicated self discipline work- like bring some real focus to it- to be able to eat just ONE chip. I could do it- but I would have to work at it. it's a self control issue- and I get somethings are more managable than others.
That is completely different than binging and mindless uncontrollable eating. And I understand that if you ate ice cream when you were sad- and you had ice cream- and then you got nostalgic and then bingy b/c of whatever previously made you sad- I would get that- but it's not the actual ice cream- you have a bigger issue. You'd just shift focus to something else- you have to handle the bigger issue.
If the method works, why discount it off hand? Just because the overeating may have a psychological component, doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate problem. What if breaking the bad habit by not eating those foods, breaks the bad relationship with that food, and forms a better habit, strengthening the "resistance muscle" to the point that you no longer reach for that food? You are breaking the cycle of associating comfort for emotional distress with food. You are forced to find a new coping mechanism. You stop turning to the food.
Sometimes I would just eat chocolate not because I was upset, but because the sugar in my coffee wore off, and I needed more sugar high.
Once the habit and emotion/food association (or the blood sugar response is no longer in the equation) are disconnected from one another for a long period, it is possible to stay away from it. I used to not be able to see or smell chocolate of any kind without having some. When the sugar hit my bloodstream, the high was nice. I haven't had chocolate for 5 months. I make it for my kids and watch them eat it, but I don't have any. I'm cool with that. Same for pizza and french fries. I can't eat pizza without literally eating an entire pizza or french fries without polishing off the whole thing. Or I used to. Now, I eat other things until I am full. I don't feel the need to overeat. And I naturally eat a lot less. My appetite is no longer rampant.
When I'm upset, I no longer turn to food at all. I take a walk or distract myself in other ways.
Low-carb diets can help people resolve the issue. It is a tool. Some people choose to use that tool, others do not and prefer to use another method. Sure it would be nice for everyone to be able to eat just one of everything. But that isn't reality. Until the relationship with food is mended, you aren't going anywhere. Why not use a tool that works? My tool, a tool many others use as well, is breaking the association by limiting the food. Is that not a logical approach?
So I say, as long as it isn't damaging to your health (mentally or physically) do whatever works best for you.
At no point did I say it didn't work.
I just said there was a bigger issue at hand that you have to identify what it is. If you just keep blaming sugar then you never address your actual issue you wind up back in the same hole.
There is a difference from using it as a tool to help and understand there is a bigger issue verses just using it as a scape goat and trying crutch you way out of a mental problem wiht a self discipline issue.
Eating to much sugar- or for you- i.e. your chocolate is a conditioned response and a self discipline issue- it wasn't a binge issue. Those are different- and yes- using it as a tool CAN help- but you STILL- if you are binging- in the true sense of the word- having to itdentify whatever the problem is that is causing you to either eat your emotions- or eat yourself out of house and home.
That has nothing to do with conditioned repsonses and self discipline.
And I agree- you have to do what works best for you- but I think it's REALLY really important to understand there is a huge difference between:
- a conditioned response i.e: I eat sweets before bed- I have an INCREDIBLY strong urge to do so every night b/c I do it all the time)
- a lack of self discipline- can't walk past a tray of food w/o picking something
- flat out binging- uncontrollable food consumption that has zip zero zilch to do with hunger- and you often eat to the point of over
But I do agree with you- use what healthy tools you can to repair your mind and your relationship with food- HOW you do that and the path you chose is up to you and what works for you- within a safe and healthy manner.
The bolded part is exactly how I ended up 90lbs overweight 5 months ago.
I did all three of those things.
To binge:"indulge in an activity, especially eating, to excess."
I think being depressed and eating an entire pizza and a whole bag of chocolates is binging. Eating most of a bag of chips, not the little bags. Eating two bowls of cereal, one right after another. Demolishing an entire row and a half of Oreos. Eating until you can't move. Eating until it hurts. Hiding the damage you just did to the food, and the guilt...boy the guilt. And the self-hate.
I understand what binging is.
I don't do that anymore.
I stopped eating the foods that I abused. After that I learned how to control my emotions and responses to things since I no longer had the foods to abuse. I learned how to distract myself from the compulsion when I got cranky. I don't need to eat my feelings anymore. I've lost weight. I'm happy.
Crutches are handy in helping you to walk, when you need the support. You can chuck them later, once you become strong enough. 0 -
I was not even a sweet eater and it damaged my body! Sugar is added to so many foods and I think that is one reason it seems to be demonized. Believe me, when you are only allowed so many grams of sugar in a given amount of time, you realize they are everywhere, in everything!amelie2651 wrote: »Let's add some science to the conversation.
Here's a very cool study. Best to read the article yourself, but my summary is this: researchers created a strain of mice that produce less insulin than control mice in response to a standardized diet. Both the experimental and control mice were fed the same diet and observed. The result was that the mice with (genetically programmed) lower insulin levels increased their energy expenditure, didn't get fat and also displayed a host of very positive metabolic effects like reduced systemic inflammation (which is what drives cardiovascular disease in people) and reduced liver fat accumulation.
Of course, we can't (easily) genetically modify people already born, so I'd say the next best thing is to keep your insulin levels low. The best way to do that is eat a diet low in refined carbohydrates (to reduce insulin secretion) and exercise (to increase insulin sensitivity).
It is categorically not the case that all calories are created equal and they do not all have an identical metabolic effect. To pick the easiest example, fructose must be metabolized by the liver, much like ethanol. A diet high in fructose causes non alcoholic fatty liver which can lead to insulin resistance and liver failure.
Sodium is added to many foods as well and when people say they need to cut back on their sodium they aren't mocked or made to feel silly. Maybe we are just used to hearing about the evils of sodium now. Both are necessary to a healthy functioning body, but not at the levels they are found in prepackaged/convenience foods. And not at the levels Americans (at least) are used to eating them.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »
Crutches are handy in helping you to walk, when you need the support. You can chuck them later, once you become strong enough.
agreed-
This is of course you realize what the crutches are helping you fix LOL
ps- glad to see you moved past that stage-*kitten*'s a tough thing to fix- food is ALWAYS there for you- even when you hate yourself for eating it.0 -
Here's another cool study.
This trial randomly assigned people to either a low fat diet or a low carb diet and followed them for 12 months. The low carb group lost more weight than the low fat group and regained less. The kicker, though, is that the low carb group lost weight in excess of what would be predicted by the difference in calorie intake between the groups by about 3 pounds in 3 months. (Admittedly, not a huge difference, but both groups didn't lose a ton of weight.) Also, the low carb group actually improved their cardiovascular risk (increased HDL, decreased triglycerides and decreased 10 year Framingham risk score). And they did all that by not being particularly strict about their low-carb-ness (averaging about 100 grams of carbohydrates per day).0 -
<my not shocked fact>
carbs are a calorie heavy food- so if you go low carb- you typically start to cut out heavy things like breads and pasta that are very high in calories.
not.shocked.0 -
amelie2651 wrote: »Here's another cool study.
This trial randomly assigned people to either a low fat diet or a low carb diet and followed them for 12 months. The low carb group lost more weight than the low fat group and regained less. The kicker, though, is that the low carb group lost weight in excess of what would be predicted by the difference in calorie intake between the groups by about 3 pounds in 3 months. (Admittedly, not a huge difference, but both groups didn't lose a ton of weight.) Also, the low carb group actually improved their cardiovascular risk (increased HDL, decreased triglycerides and decreased 10 year Framingham risk score). And they did all that by not being particularly strict about their low-carb-ness (averaging about 100 grams of carbohydrates per day).
Past 12 months though might not be the case...
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20100301/low-fat--diet-tops-low-carb-in-long-run
"Although participants in the low-carbohydrate group lost more weight at 12 months, they regained more weight during the next 24 months," write researcher Marion L. Vetter, MD, RD of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine. "In contrast, participants in the low-fat group maintained their weight loss."
"After six months on the diets, the group on the low-carb diet experienced the greatest weight loss, but by 12 months there was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups."
"Three years after the study began and two years after the diets ended, researchers followed up with 40 people in the low-carb diet group and 48 in the low-fat diet group."
"They found people in the low-carb diet group weighed an average of 4.9 pounds less than before they started dieting while those in the low-fat diet group weighed an average of 9.5 pounds less than they did at the start of the study."
0 -
Somebody or something always has to be the devil. It seems to be the way we're wired.0
-
amelie2651 wrote: »Here's another cool study.
This trial randomly assigned people to either a low fat diet or a low carb diet and followed them for 12 months. The low carb group lost more weight than the low fat group and regained less. The kicker, though, is that the low carb group lost weight in excess of what would be predicted by the difference in calorie intake between the groups by about 3 pounds in 3 months. (Admittedly, not a huge difference, but both groups didn't lose a ton of weight.) Also, the low carb group actually improved their cardiovascular risk (increased HDL, decreased triglycerides and decreased 10 year Framingham risk score). And they did all that by not being particularly strict about their low-carb-ness (averaging about 100 grams of carbohydrates per day).
This study has been discussed at length on MFP -- you might be able to find the thread.
Not really sure why it's cited as support for "sugar is the devil," but whatever.
0 -
@J72FIT, so I looked up the reference and it's not very strong evidence. The research that was referenced in that WebMD article was actually just a letter to the editor rather than a full research report -- as such it didn't include much raw data. There was a single figure that showed the weight loss over time in the two groups. Looks like the lines cross around the two year mark. It was the case that the low carb group was at a higher mean weight at 36 months but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (which I note was left out of that WebMD piece -- nice journalism). There's no information about whether or not the groups were still adhering to their randomly assigned diets from three years prior.
Finally, just because I can't resist -- this trial slays me because the original trial design was to carb restrict one group but *not* calorie restrict them vs a low fat diet that was calculated to created a 500 calorie/d deficit. And the low carb-ers significantly out-lost the low fat group in the first year. Hilarious.0 -
-
-food is ALWAYS there for you- even when you hate yourself for eating it.
No joke! Food was my best friend. With friends like that, who needs enemies...
Shush that! You're ruining the magic with your logic. Geez! You can't let us have anything, can you.
0 -
amelie2651 wrote: »@J72FIT, so I looked up the reference and it's not very strong evidence. The research that was referenced in that WebMD article was actually just a letter to the editor rather than a full research report -- as such it didn't include much raw data. There was a single figure that showed the weight loss over time in the two groups. Looks like the lines cross around the two year mark. It was the case that the low carb group was at a higher mean weight at 36 months but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (which I note was left out of that WebMD piece -- nice journalism). There's no information about whether or not the groups were still adhering to their randomly assigned diets from three years prior.
Finally, just because I can't resist -- this trial slays me because the original trial design was to carb restrict one group but *not* calorie restrict them vs a low fat diet that was calculated to created a 500 calorie/d deficit. And the low carb-ers significantly out-lost the low fat group in the first year. Hilarious.
At the end of the day, best way to fat loss is negative energy balance. There is no best way for all, only the best way for the individual. That best way is whatever they can adhere to and enjoy. You can find 10 different studies and get 10 different possible solutions.
0 -
I knoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww we should burn someone over this!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions