Carbs & Sugars :(

mynameisuntz

Transient hormonal fluctuations are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition. :-)

Preaching to the choir :P

Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..

With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.

You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.

No one said low carb doesn't work. She made the claim that sugar intake matters rather than overall caloric intake. That's false. You WILL lose weight regardless of sugar intake so long as you're in a caloric deficit, and she challenged that fact of nature (again, LAW of thermodynamics).

High protein does not imply low carb. You can be high protein and still be high carb.

The only people that need to watch carbs are those with some sort of insensitivity to it, which again, is a low portion of the general population.

"Primal" diet works because it puts you in a caloric deficit and has you balancing macronutrients. The idea that it's superior as so many believe is complete and utter nonsense. There's not a shred of proper support that validates that claim. But again, no one disputes that it works, and no one disputes that low carb work. HOWEVER, to imply that either primal eating or low carb is SUPERIOR would imply that she is NOT up to date on proper research.

Barneystinson

Instead of getting into a pis*ing match about the amount of carbohydrate in your diet, here's a really simple test:

What foods make you feel full and satisfied and stay within your suggested caloric intake for the day?

A food that provides volume, satiety, beneficial vitamins/minerals/nutrients and fits within your caloric goals can be part of your diet. Food is energy. Choose what works for you. Because one person is successful on 55%, 40%, or hell, 10% of their calories coming from carbohydrate is beside the point.

kimmerroze

Transient hormonal fluctuations are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition. :-)

Preaching to the choir :P

Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..

With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.

You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.

No one said low carb doesn't work. She made the claim that sugar intake matters rather than overall caloric intake. That's false. You WILL lose weight regardless of sugar intake so long as you're in a caloric deficit, and she challenged that fact of nature (again, LAW of thermodynamics).

High protein does not imply low carb. You can be high protein and still be high carb.

The only people that need to watch carbs are those with some sort of insensitivity to it, which again, is a low portion of the general population.

"Primal" diet works because it puts you in a caloric deficit and has you balancing macronutrients. The idea that it's superior as so many believe is complete and utter nonsense. There's not a shred of proper support that validates that claim. But again, no one disputes that it works, and no one disputes that low carb work. HOWEVER, to imply that either primal eating or low carb is SUPERIOR would imply that she is NOT up to date on proper research.

I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...

edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...

hpsnickers1

I've done my research and not only through Taubes. I have been through all the clinical trials and studies and have seen the evidence. I'm washing my hands of this.

Clearly not the case, and an expected answer for not having any studies backing your claims.

Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..

With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.

You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.

**edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...

Thank you, kimmeroze. I know you do things differently and it has worked great for you and I appreciate your kind words. We are all different and our bodies all handle carbs differently. I know by my family history that carbs aren't for me. My father is on dialysis and has maybe 3 years left because his body is giving out on him. He's only 69 years old (his mother is 90 and his grandmother died at 92). And now off the the restroom to take care of my watery eyes. My co-workers don't need to see me like this.

mynameisuntz

I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...

edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...

Yep. But really all that means is ~1g protein per pound lean body mass while maintaining a healthy caloric deficit. If the OP is eating 100g protein in a 1,600 calorie diet, then that leaves 1,200 calories for carbs/fat. For illustrative purposes, the OP could eat 100g protein and 400g of pure sugar and STILL see healthy body recomposition (assuming she weight trains for muscle maintenance, too).

kimmerroze

I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...

edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...

Yep. But really all that means is ~1g protein per pound lean body mass while maintaining a healthy caloric deficit. If the OP is eating 100g protein in a 1,600 calorie diet, then that leaves 1,200 calories for carbs/fat. For illustrative purposes, the OP could eat 100g protein and 400g of pure sugar and STILL see healthy body recomposition (assuming she weight trains for muscle maintenance, too).

Mathmatically that is correct... however I wouldn't recommend anyone eating 100grams of protein and then the rest in pure sugar.. considering there is not nutrient value in it. or very little atleast.

absie107

EGGS. EAT THEM. DO IT. They make you full. I put salsa on them.

Barneystinson

I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...

edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...

Yep. But really all that means is ~1g protein per pound lean body mass while maintaining a healthy caloric deficit. If the OP is eating 100g protein in a 1,600 calorie diet, then that leaves 1,200 calories for carbs/fat. For illustrative purposes, the OP could eat 100g protein and 400g of pure sugar and STILL see healthy body recomposition (assuming she weight trains for muscle maintenance, too).

That would be an absolutely bizarre combination of food, but I see where you're going.

mynameisuntz

That would be an absolutely bizarre combination of food, but I see where you're going.

Mathmatically that is correct... however I wouldn't recommend anyone eating 100grams of protein and then the rest in pure sugar.. considering there is not nutrient value in it. or very little atleast.

Right, I'm not suggesting anyone do this. I'm merely illustrating a point.

Angela4Health

That would be an absolutely bizarre combination of food, but I see where you're going.

Mathmatically that is correct... however I wouldn't recommend anyone eating 100grams of protein and then the rest in pure sugar.. considering there is not nutrient value in it. or very little atleast.

Right, I'm not suggesting anyone do this. I'm merely illustrating a point.

You make me laugh. How about this? Carbs are evil and if you eat them you're going to DIE!!!!!!! Hear that? DIEEEEEEEE~~~~~~~~~~~~ hahaha

TK421NotAtPost

Taubes would have you believe that calories don't matter. Please don't listen to him!

Low carbs diets are an effective tool, especially for people who are carb senstive, but the dynamic behind the weight loss is still due to a caloric deficit. Heck, I've lost tons of weight going low carb also and if I weren't carefully tracking my calories, I would villify carbs as well because it is a challenge to eat enough food. But since I've carefully planned my meals and tracked my calories, I know that my weight loss is due to calories in < maintenance calories, and not some magical insulinogenic manipulation (though it does help curb appetite).

heniko

I have about 400 calories left in my day BEFORE my workout tonight, and I am already over my Carbs by 59 and my Sugars by 111. The sugars are seriously almost all from my grapes, so they're natural. BUT, I'm worried this will affect my goal of dropping my last few pounds, and toning up. Anyone know anything about this? Feel free to add me! (: Thanks in advance for the help!

11g of sugar from grapes? That's alot of grapes! WHile grapes do have vits they are mostly water and sugar.
And you said you go over your protein. Well first how much are your goals? If you are eating higher carbs even complex carbs but lower fat and protein you are masjorly lacking macros. It would be helpful to state your goals here.Protein is essential for body function and building muscles.

concordancia

Zero clinical trials exist that show hindered weight loss by eating sugar so long as macronutrients are maintained AND the people in question are not insulin resistant/diabetic.

Being 100 OVER on sugar, even natural sugars, on a regular basis is likely to induce insulin resistance, if not diabetes!! Yes, MFP has sugar set ridiculously low, especially given how high they have the carbs set, but 100 over is not something you should do on a regular basis.

(I see someone else assumed the number was meant to be 11 - that wouldn't be so bad).

mynameisuntz

Being 100 OVER on sugar, even natural sugars, on a regular basis is likely to induce insulin resistance, if not diabetes!! Yes, MFP has sugar set ridiculously low, especially given how high they have the carbs set, but 100 over is not something you should do on a regular basis.

(I see someone else assumed the number was meant to be 11 - that wouldn't be so bad).

Not true.

What happens if you eat 400g sugar (which equates to 1,600 calories as 1 carb = 4 calories) when your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories? Not only does every single gram of that sugar get burned throughout the day, but you will also burn additional fat/glycogen on top of it.

Chronic caloric deficit INHERENTLY means better long-term insulin sensitivity ASSUMING the person does not have a clinical condition to begin with.

concordancia

Being 100 OVER on sugar, even natural sugars, on a regular basis is likely to induce insulin resistance, if not diabetes!! Yes, MFP has sugar set ridiculously low, especially given how high they have the carbs set, but 100 over is not something you should do on a regular basis.

(I see someone else assumed the number was meant to be 11 - that wouldn't be so bad).

Not true.

What happens if you eat 400g sugar (which equates to 1,600 calories as 1 carb = 4 calories) when your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories? Not only does every single gram of that sugar get burned throughout the day, but you will also burn additional fat/glycogen on top of it.

Chronic caloric deficit INHERENTLY means better long-term insulin sensitivity ASSUMING the person does not have a clinical condition to begin with.

No. Excess sugars sends your blood chemistry on a roller coaster which can cause problems, especially if someone is genetically predisposed. Sorry, but while being overweight is a frequent trigger of type II, skinny people can get it, too.

DianaPowerUp

Debate aside, I can tell you from my own personal experience - I have NEVER, until now, in my life shed those last 5 (turned to 10, 15 lbs). Never. I exercised my *kitten* off - major cardio 1-2 hrs/day, 5 days/wk. And still, I had those extra pounds, that bit of flab. I couldn't figure out what was going wrong. (check out my before pic on my profile)

Now, I'm pushing 50, and for the first time in my life, I have definition. I have abs. I have biceps and triceps. Why? Well, the biggest change came when I changed my diet. I now eat very little if any processed foods. I also have reduced my carb intake (grains/sugars). I increased my protein. I get the majority of my carbs from the dairy sugars and fruit/veggies that I eat. I'm at a point now where I'm still losing weight, and I don't even want to anymore, so I'm increasing my calories every wk. My diary is open, btw.

I reduced the amt. of cardio I was doing, and increased my strength training. I lift as heavy as I can, 3x/wk, and do some light cardio 2x/wk.

But I can tell you (since I didn't do all this at the same time), the BIGGEST change in my body composition happened when I reduced my carb intake. Not only that, but I FEEL better. I don't get those hunger pangs, the cravings, the "I have to eat NOW!!!" thing anymore, b/c I'm not on that roller coaster sugar ride - up and down all day.

You can debate all you want about whether carbs are good for you or not. I can tell you there is significant research out there (which I have read) to show you that all macronutrients are NOT created equally, and I am living proof. Certaintly, we are all different, and what works for one may not be as effective for another. If you are a training triathlete, you'll need more carbs to fuel (instantly) the grueling workouts. But most of us aren't, and the excess goes into storage.....

mynameisuntz

No. Excess sugars sends your blood chemistry on a roller coaster which can cause problems, especially if someone is genetically predisposed. Sorry, but while being overweight is a frequent trigger of type II, skinny people can get it, too.

"Excess" in regards to nutrition is relevant ONLY when it implies excess calories.

If you are at a caloric deficit and do not have a clinical condition such as diabetes, then "excess sugar" is an impossible term. You only can be at excess sugar if it sends you in a caloric surplus or imbalances your macronutrients. If you can fit 400g sugar in your diet, then it's not excess.

Sugar elicits an insulin response, which is no problem for those who aren't diabetic or insulin resistant. Explain how temporary, meal-influenced insulin spikes are bad. Chronically raised insulin levels are bad. Temporary ones are not.

Skinny people with high body fat percentages can get type II diabetes. Find me people with healthy body fat percentages who get type II diabetes WHILE monitoring their calories/macronutrients/remaining lean.

mynameisuntz

Debate aside, I can tell you from my own personal experience - I have NEVER, until now, in my life shed those last 5 (turned to 10, 15 lbs). Never. I exercised my *kitten* off - major cardio 1-2 hrs/day, 5 days/wk. And still, I had those extra pounds, that bit of flab. I couldn't figure out what was going wrong. (check out my before pic on my profile)

Now, I'm pushing 50, and for the first time in my life, I have definition. I have abs. I have biceps and triceps. Why? Well, the biggest change came when I changed my diet. I now eat very little if any processed foods. I also have reduced my carb intake (grains/sugars). I increased my protein. I get the majority of my carbs from the dairy sugars and fruit/veggies that I eat. I'm at a point now where I'm still losing weight, and I don't even want to anymore, so I'm increasing my calories every wk. My diary is open, btw.

I reduced the amt. of cardio I was doing, and increased my strength training. I lift as heavy as I can, 3x/wk, and do some light cardio 2x/wk.

But I can tell you (since I didn't do all this at the same time), the BIGGEST change in my body composition happened when I reduced my carb intake. Not only that, but I FEEL better. I don't get those hunger pangs, the cravings, the "I have to eat NOW!!!" thing anymore, b/c I'm not on that roller coaster sugar ride - up and down all day.

You can debate all you want about whether carbs are good for you or not. I can tell you there is significant research out there (which I have read) to show you that all macronutrients are NOT created equally, and I am living proof. Certaintly, we are all different, and what works for one may not be as effective for another. If you are a training triathlete, you'll need more carbs to fuel (instantly) the grueling workouts. But most of us aren't, and the excess goes into storage.....

As you decreased carbs, you increased protein.

That's called a confound.

Chuckw40

No. Excess sugars sends your blood chemistry on a roller coaster which can cause problems, especially if someone is genetically predisposed. Sorry, but while being overweight is a frequent trigger of type II, skinny people can get it, too.

"Excess" in regards to nutrition is relevant ONLY when it implies excess calories.

If you are at a caloric deficit and do not have a clinical condition such as diabetes, then "excess sugar" is an impossible term. You only can be at excess sugar if it sends you in a caloric surplus or imbalances your macronutrients. If you can fit 400g sugar in your diet, then it's not excess.

Sugar elicits an insulin response, which is no problem for those who aren't diabetic or insulin resistant. Explain how temporary, meal-influenced insulin spikes are bad. Chronically raised insulin levels are bad. Temporary ones are not.

Skinny people with high body fat percentages can get type II diabetes. Find me people with healthy body fat percentages who get type II diabetes WHILE monitoring their calories/macronutrients/remaining lean.

Is it possible to have a healthy percentage of body fat if you are eating 400 grams of sugar a day?

If the only goal is to lose weight then yes, any deficit will do it. In fact if that is your only concern, just stop eating altogether and you will lose loads of weight. Now if you want to lose weight and be healthy, then it's a good idea to limit sugar.

If this is wrong please let me know.

mynameisuntz

Is it possible to have a healthy percentage of body fat if you are eating 400 grams of sugar a day?

If the only goal is to lose weight then yes, any deficit will do it. In fact if that is your only concern, just stop eating altogether and you will lose loads of weight. Now if you want to lose weight and be healthy, then it's a good idea to limit sugar.

If this is wrong please let me know.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be?

The only reason why we limit sugar is to make room for food that has more micronutrients, like veggies, fruits, and whole grains. Other than that, sugar is simply a quick-absorbing carb. When diet, and preferably exercise is in check, it doesn't do any harm for those who don't have some sort of clinical condition.