Sugar Over but Calories Under
Replies
-
But, given that I find interracting with zealots of any type tedious
Now this right here is funny, though.
Irony is, like, my favorite thing.0 -
The type of food does matter in the long run, calories in/calories out is a flawed method. You have to be careful if you are maintaining a high sugar habit (i.e. Coca-Cola) but cutting food for example. That is my point.
how exactly is calories in vs calories out "flawed"….?
you can drink coca cola, be in a calorie deficit, and continue to lose weight...
It's flawed if you have a wider goal of being healthy rather than just losing weight
The 'Rabbit Starvation' problem is an illustration, albeit an extreme one, of why a 'calorie is just a calorie' mantra is flawed if you want to live a healthy life
http://www.raising-rabbits.com/rabbit-starvation.html
I don't see what this article has to do with calories in vs calories out being flawed?0 -
Thanks for your fascinating input, it's certainly food for thought. Perhaps I'll be able to live a long and healthy life by simply consuming that single source.
Because everything is black and white. There's no gray area for consumption of other things. The word moderation just has to be said otherwise, you'll just assume everyone is saying to drink all your calories in soda. Okay.
His argument is a straw man argument; reductio ad absurdum.
It's what people do when they can't make a valid point with usable data, so they reduce it to an absurdity because it's the only way a supporting counterpoint can be made.
I knew that minoring in logic and philosophy would pay off in some meaningless and insignificant way at some point.
No, I think that you'll find that my argument is a perfectly valid response to the witless mantra that asserts that no distinction can or ought to be made between the source of calories. The source may have no impact in terms of weight gain, but it has a great deal of relevance with respect to living a healthy life. One only needs to view the vast volume of questions appearing on this site which demonstrate a shared lack of basic knowlege on the part of many posters. Telling these people that it doesn't make any difference what they eat as all calories are "the same" is, at best, reckless. But, given that I find interracting with zealots of any type tedious I really can't be bothered to engage further. Good luck with the rest of your education.
Someone would have to be a complete idiot to read, "It's OK to go over on your sugar," as, "It's OK and healthy to live entirely on sugar and nothing else."
You're being obtuse.
Actually, what he's doing now is resorting to ad hominem arguments.
The thinking goes that if you can't make a valid argument, you insult the person making the valid argument.
Next comes a slippery slope. If he continues along the sliding scale of his rhetorical fail, we're all going to die of cancer.
Agreed 100%.
OP, a bit "too much" sugar isn't going to hurt you if you hit your calorie and macro goals. Worrying about things that don't matter though might drive you batty. Focus on getting sufficient protein, fats, and fiber, eat your veggies so you get your micros, and if you happen to have room for some cookies, cake and ice cream, then enjoy. Personally, I like donuts.0 -
More confusion with calories in vs out and all calories are not created equal........a calorie is a measure of energy, but the foods we eat influence different metabolic an hormonal responses that effect the energy balance equation...........this confusion I suspect will continue f-o-r-e-v-e-r.The type of food does matter in the long run, calories in/calories out is a flawed method. You have to be careful if you are maintaining a high sugar habit (i.e. Coca-Cola) but cutting food for example. That is my point.
how exactly is calories in vs calories out "flawed"….?
you can drink coca cola, be in a calorie deficit, and continue to lose weight...
It's flawed if you have a wider goal of being healthy rather than just losing weight
The 'Rabbit Starvation' problem is an illustration, albeit an extreme one, of why a 'calorie is just a calorie' mantra is flawed if you want to live a healthy life
http://www.raising-rabbits.com/rabbit-starvation.html
I don't see what this article has to do with calories in vs calories out being flawed?0 -
Yep. I don't even track my sugar. I went over JUST from the fruit I eat and the honey I put in my tea. I'm a visual learner and seeing a number in the red by the end of breakfast was horrible for me. Plus, I needed to start tracking iron (I have anemia), so I figured that would be the best to trade it out with & the most useful for me. I don't mind when my iron goes negative, that's what I aim for!
edited for grammar, oops.0 -
In a word - yes.
Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it
Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.
There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola0 -
There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit.
The only difference is that the sugar in the fruit comes with vitamins and fiber while the sugar in the soda doesn't.
So eat some veggies with your soda and it's the same.0 -
In a word - yes.
Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it
Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.
There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola
at the molecular level all sugar is the same...when your body breaks down sugar, it is breaking down sugar..it is not saying "oh this is refined sugar and must be bad" or "oh, this is fruit sugar so it is good"....0 -
In the short term, yes. In the long term, you need to be careful with sugar intake, if you are not reducing your long term sugar/carbs, the chances are you will put on any weight that you have lost.
Good example of bro science which adds no value...
Anyways OP as others said all what matters is total energy intake over a 24 hour period. If that is in a deficit then you will lost. It doesn't matter if you have all your calories in Mars bars and Twinkies or you have them in oats.
However, weight loss is not everything in life, and overall health and well being requires a balanced approach to nutrition, especially that during weight loss the body is under lots of stress and this can cause some problems down the line. Another thing about sugar is that it actually kills gut flora, these are tiny micro-organisms that keep your digestive system running well and also provide immunity. So more sugar = less immunity and you will be more prone to the cold and flu etc.
Anyways good luck - one thing on MFP is that it adds fruit sugars to your total sugars. While that is again fine, fructose is very different to glucose or sucrose - both have pros and cons over each other, more here:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Fructose_vs_Glucose0 -
In a word - yes.
Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it
Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.
There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola
at the molecular level all sugar is the same...when your body breaks down sugar, it is breaking down sugar..it is not saying "oh this is refined sugar and must be bad" or "oh, this is fruit sugar so it is good"....
Notice that in my previous comment I put 'good' and 'bad' in inverted commas - as to say there isn't technically such thing as good or bad sugar. It's my way of looking at sources of sugar, as I said, I would rather get all my sugar from natural sources, rather than knowing I've eaten a load of sugar from sources that have no nutritional value or benefit, such as sugary drinks.0 -
In a word - yes.
Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it
Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.
There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola
at the molecular level all sugar is the same...when your body breaks down sugar, it is breaking down sugar..it is not saying "oh this is refined sugar and must be bad" or "oh, this is fruit sugar so it is good"....
Notice that in my previous comment I put 'good' and 'bad' in inverted commas - as to say there isn't technically such thing as good or bad sugar. It's my way of looking at sources of sugar, as I said, I would rather get all my sugar from natural sources, rather than knowing I've eaten a load of sugar from sources that have no nutritional value or benefit, such as sugary drinks.
That's fine if that's what YOU like doing but that doesn't change the fact that sugar is sugar... As long as I'm meeting my macronutrients, I will eat ice cream, caramel turtles, and a soda. Fruits are nice to get fiber and vitamins but if we're talking just sugar, doesn't matter.0 -
The source may have no impact in terms of weight gain, but it has a great deal of relevance with respect to living a healthy life.
No one (I think) disagrees with this.
It's semantics again. If the above is what you mean when you say "calories in vs. calories out is flawed" you are not technically wrong. But the other posts in this thread were very good about qualifying that statement with something like "with regards to weight loss". "Flawed" is a little vague for the point you're trying to make. It would be better characterized, in my opinion, as potentially misleading if not appropriately qualified. In the case of this thread, though, again in my opinion, the qualifier was well stated.0 -
A lot of stress and confusion. And a lot of people accusing me of being ill-informed, which is not the case. However I accept 'flawed' could have done with more clarification.
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
One respondent put correctly "but the foods we eat influence different metabolic an hormonal responses that effect the energy balance equation"
This is key - whilst is true calories in/calories out is correct. The two measures are not independent of each other. Having a high sugar diet but cutting calories in can have the impact of reducing calories out. Placing as I said a person into a position where short term they lose weight, but quite quickly the body adjusts.
Now of course, going over one macro on MFP is not the end of the world. But with no access to the diary of the original poster, I wanted to make sure that a long term sugar habit is not remaining (in my case - that was Coca-Cola). If that long term habit remains, the body will adjust the calories out, making it harder and harder to lose weight.
Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more0 -
A lot of stress and confusion. And a lot of people accusing me of being ill-informed, which is not the case. However I accept 'flawed' could have done with more clarification.
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
One respondent put correctly "but the foods we eat influence different metabolic an hormonal responses that effect the energy balance equation"
This is key - whilst is true calories in/calories out is correct. The two measures are not independent of each other. Having a high sugar diet but cutting calories in can have the impact of reducing calories out. Placing as I said a person into a position where short term they lose weight, but quite quickly the body adjusts.
Now of course, going over one macro on MFP is not the end of the world. But with no access to the diary of the original poster, I wanted to make sure that a long term sugar habit is not remaining (in my case - that was Coca-Cola). If that long term habit remains, the body will adjust the calories out, making it harder and harder to lose weight.
Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more
Confusing post. You say weight gain is caused by sugar/carb intake, and then go on to say that calories in vs calories out is correct...so which one is it?
Weight gain is caused by overeating, period. You can overeat on low carb/low sugar and you will gain weight; consequently, you can under eat on high carb/high sugar and you will lose weight.
I am really having a hard time figuring out what the point of your post is...0 -
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more
First sentence is false. Caloric surplus causes weight gain.
Second statement is exactly where you are going wrong. First off - read more books. Not being a **** either, because when I originally read that book I fell for the cherry picking of science that Taubes employs too.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html <---read the comments too
http://weightology.net/?p=265 <----amazing breakdown of a chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories (this was his first book that the book you mentioned is based off of)
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bray-review-of-gcbc.pdf <-- bray review of Good Calories bad calories0 -
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
What?! Science to back this up please?!0 -
Weight gain is caused by excess calories. If I ate 5000 calories a day of chicken, I'd gain weight, even though my carbohydrates would be all but non-existent.
Sugar is just a carbohydrate. Unless there's a medical reason for you, personally, to track it - or you like demonstrating how you're losing weight while eating doughnuts and ice cream - there's no need to track it separately from other carbohydrates. Get adequate protein and fats, eat at a caloric deficit, and enjoy your sugar.0 -
I guess from a purely weight loss point of view no. That said, IMO, sugar can be problematic if it comes at the expense of other vital nutrients. In other words, if you are reducing your minimum protein and or fat requirements in order to eat more deserts. That said again, if you are hitting all your numbers and can eat sugar while still remaining in a deficit, then I see it being of no consequence.0
-
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
I wanted to make sure that a long term sugar habit is not remaining (in my case - that was Coca-Cola). If that long term habit remains, the body will adjust the calories out, making it harder and harder to lose weight.
Hum. I don't know that I buy that. I'm sure there are people who have gained weight while eating very few carbs. And I absolutely believe I could eat a mountain of bacon and gain weight.
It's interesting you mention the Coke thing. I would suggest that it's more likely that eliminating Coke worked for you because it's a fair few calories but virtually no nutrition. I drink a diet soda from time to time. If I changed nothing else about my diet, but changed those to non-diet, that would add a load of calories, and that would make it hard to drop the pounds. I think the calories are more likely the culprit than the sugar/carbs.0 -
I eat a lot of fruit, so I go way over on sugar. Therefore, I don't bother tracking it. I'm not going to give up fruit.
Me too! Most days I'm over on sugar because of fruit, when I look through the diary to see the biggest 'offender' it's often the humble apple.0 -
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more
First sentence is false. Caloric surplus causes weight gain.
Second statement is exactly where you are going wrong. First off - read more books. Not being a **** either, because when I originally read that book I fell for the cherry picking of science that Taubes employs too.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html <---read the comments too
http://weightology.net/?p=265 <----amazing breakdown of a chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories (this was his first book that the book you mentioned is based off of)
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bray-review-of-gcbc.pdf <-- bray review of Good Calories bad calories
Thanks, I will have a read.0 -
i'm not sure if anyone has said it yet - but sometimes it can be detrimental to weight loss!
if you are losing weight and eating that amount of sugar, then you aren't carb sensitive. but if you see no improvement then you may be like me, i am quite carb sensitive.
the more processed the carbs are/sugary, the higher the glycemic index of the food is, which makes your insulin spike and also makes fat storage a lot easier.
i've done endless research on this, as i have an unfortunate body type - endomorphic.
understand your body type and learn how to count your macros
because every body is different - and for people like me, a calorie isn't just a calorie!
if you can eat lots of sugars i am so so envious though haha. best wishes with your goals xx0 -
i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF
0 -
i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF
Since you've done so much research on this. I'd love to see your sources and the science behind it. This all sounds broscience and 100% false. With the exception of macronutrient.ratios having effect on body comp (btw sugar is a micro). I eat close to 100g of sugar a day and started at 31%+ BF. I haven't had my BF % tested recently but I've definitely seen a huge drop. My composition has completely changed.0 -
i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF
Since you've done so much research on this. I'd love to see your sources and the science behind it. This all sounds broscience and 100% false. With the exception of macronutrient.ratios having effect on body comp (btw sugar is a micro). I eat close to 100g of sugar a day and started at 31%+ BF. I haven't had my BF % tested recently but I've definitely seen a huge drop. My composition has completely changed.
I'm not dismissing others way of dieting. I'm just speaking of what worked for me watching my macros definitely helped me a lot, because i am carb sensitive. i was losing weight a lot slower when i incorporated sugars in my diet, then i started dropping bf quite fast. i was thinking this could be an option for OP if she isn't seeing results.
and my bad, when i mentioned macros i was referring to carbs which obviously increases by eating sugars. 0 -
Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).
Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more
First sentence is false. Caloric surplus causes weight gain.
Second statement is exactly where you are going wrong. First off - read more books. Not being a **** either, because when I originally read that book I fell for the cherry picking of science that Taubes employs too.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html <---read the comments too
http://weightology.net/?p=265 <----amazing breakdown of a chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories (this was his first book that the book you mentioned is based off of)
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bray-review-of-gcbc.pdf <-- bray review of Good Calories bad calories
Thanks for these articles tedrickp. I will withdraw my comments and return to the books. :happy: Just to note, I don't use an Atkins type diet. However, I do try and reduce my overall calories intake mainly through reduction in snacking and Coca-Cola. This might explain why I find the Taupes information so appealing.0 -
Yes you can! I stopped tracking my sugar on mfp, according to the settings just having two apples a day when on 1200 cals ( I'm now maintaining) nearly put me over!0
-
In a word - yes.
Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it
Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.
There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola
at the molecular level all sugar is the same...when your body breaks down sugar, it is breaking down sugar..it is not saying "oh this is refined sugar and must be bad" or "oh, this is fruit sugar so it is good"....
Notice that in my previous comment I put 'good' and 'bad' in inverted commas - as to say there isn't technically such thing as good or bad sugar. It's my way of looking at sources of sugar, as I said, I would rather get all my sugar from natural sources, rather than knowing I've eaten a load of sugar from sources that have no nutritional value or benefit, such as sugary drinks.
That's fine if that's what YOU like doing but that doesn't change the fact that sugar is sugar... As long as I'm meeting my macronutrients, I will eat ice cream, caramel turtles, and a soda. Fruits are nice to get fiber and vitamins but if we're talking just sugar, doesn't matter.
Read this from a health expert, Dean Johnson.
***
Refined sugars:
Let’s start with ‘bad’ sugars. Yes, that’s right, refined sugars are the bad sugars. They are also the most common variety, the type that you see most often in the grocery store.
Refined sugar is bad for your body for any number of reasons, but it only takes two of them to really illustrate the fact.
1) Refined sugar has absolutely no nutritional value. Though it is derived from sugar canes & sugar beets, every ounce of nutrition is squeezed out of it during manufacture.
2) Refined sugar can have harmful chemicals included in it. Because it goes through a bleaching process after it is extracted from a plant, it isn’t uncommon for refined sugar to contain small amounts of carbon dioxide, phosphoric acid, or calcium hydroxide in it. While a second processing step is geared to eliminate these harmful substances from the finished product, it ends up doing more harm than good as the sugar is often run through a beef bone char as well.
Simply put, refined sugars are always bad. Stay away from them. They’re the kind of sugars that are found in almost every processed food, examples which include sodas, sweets, & baked goods. You might have also heard of refined sugars referred to as ‘empty calories.’
Unrefined Sugars:
‘Good sugars’ are sometimes known as unrefined sugars. Though that is a little misleading. In almost every instance, they have been slightly refined during their processing (but nowhere near as much as refined sugars). Because of this, unrefined sugars are often referred to as raw sugars.
The biggest benefit of raw sugar is that it retains many of the nutrients that it had before its minimal processing. This means that there is actually a reason to put it in your body other than just its taste. A few of these nutrients include phosphorus, calcium, iron, magnesium, & potassium.
Another reason that unrefined sugars are better than refined sugars is because they haven’t been extensively processed. No chemicals are used in processing so there is no chance that you’ll be consuming something that is dangerous to your body. In addition, the bone char step is also discarded (since the sugar doesn’t need to be unnaturally bleached).
Raw honey & raw maple syrup are two excellent examples of raw sugars. Obviously they can’t be used in everything but they do make an excellent sugar substitute in many cases. If you drink coffee or tea, just think about how many spoonful’s of sugar you could cut from your daily diet if you used a small quirt of honey as a sweetener instead.
Natural Sugars:
Finally, the best kinds of sugars of all are natural sugars. These are very similar to unrefined & raw sugars.
Natural sugars are the types that occur naturally in many plants that we eat on a daily basis. Because these sugars are completely unprocessed & bound alongside dozens of other nutrients, they are completely fine for you to be eating. In fact, they are great to eat!
Fruits & vegetables of all kinds contain natural sugars. They are an essential part of any healthy eating plan.
***
As this blog suggests, there are such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' sugars when it comes to health. Everyone on MFP (and elsewhere) always talks about how weight loss should be sustainable and involve *healthy* eating - it should be about leading a healthier lifestyle overall, not just losing as much weight as possible. You're right, as long as you're in calorie deficit you will lose weight, but common sense would suggest you should get calories from nutritious, wholesome food; not junk.
Back to the OP - yes you will lose weight, but depends on the type of sugar you're eating which will impact health. No point looking good on the outside if it's all bad on the inside...0 -
Yes, calories in, calories out, and IMO it IS black and white. Keep it simple.0
-
As a few people have said it is black and white0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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