cut the SUGAR out
Replies
-
This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....
Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?
Sweet potatoes! My favorite low hassle way to prepare them: turn your oven on to the broiler, skin or wash 1 good sized sweet potato and chop it into even circles, then coat with coconut oil and broil until brown, then season with sea salt and cinnamon or pumpkin spice. I'm on day 5 of no sugar and these are totally saving my butt.
At 8.4g sugar/100g of sweet potato, I don't see how these are cutting sugar from a diet...
...but that said, they are delicious. I prefer wrapping them in aluminum foil and then cooking this way. Makes them really easy to peel (and then keep in the fridge to eat throughout the week).0 -
Agreed, who is saying they do not?
In the nested quotes RIGHT ABOVE YOUR QUESTION:Carbs - converted to glucose, the glucose is then - taken up by the body as fuel, stored in the muscles and liver (limited storage), converted into body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.
I have no idea who said what at this point, but after the assertion was made that fat comes from carbs, someone else saidSo eating 10,000 calories of chicken breast won't make you fat? Fascinating.
At least read what you're responding to?
I think you have a mixture of different quotes.
Someone made the comment that excessive sugar in the bloodstream gets converted to body fat - which is indeed possible.
I'm not sure where the notion that fat comes from carbs is from, or where the notion that you can only gain weight by over eating carbs. I think some people are deciding to read things into post from extra dramatic effect?
Maybe the best thing to do would be to read all of the posts relating to this to get a clearer picture.
Basically, overeating anything will cause a person to gain fat.
Agreed. Although studies have shown that over eating protein can result in no weight gain (no loss either), but no weight gain!0 -
Sugar doesn't make you fat, homey. Caloric surpluses do.
QFT and importance.0 -
I think you have a mixture of different quotes.
Yes. I mentioned as much. I wasn't going to go back and figure out who added which part. It was clear someone wasn't reading the quote chain they were responding to, however.
(Why doesn't MFP connect a quote with who said it? The advanced nesting quotes style is...frustrating.)
That I whole heartedly agree with.0 -
This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....
Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?
Sweet potatoes! My favorite low hassle way to prepare them: turn your oven on to the broiler, skin or wash 1 good sized sweet potato and chop it into even circles, then coat with coconut oil and broil until brown, then season with sea salt and cinnamon or pumpkin spice. I'm on day 5 of no sugar and these are totally saving my butt.
There are 6 grams of sugar in a sweet potato, darlin'. Not sure how that works for your 'no sugar' thing.0 -
Nope - I do not get physically ill - I also can have a drink now and then and I don't get physically ill. I think I eat plenty of sugar now - I actually changed my macros because I was so "over" every day - nope, never got ill (although i did get physically ill from eating bags and bags of candy...but thats TMI). I'm not sure if other people who stopped drinking then had a drink years later got ill - I've never heard of this, but I'm sure it could happen.
What he is referring to is the fact that alcoholics become physically ill when they STOP drinking because their bodies have become so reliant on the substance. This is the same with many drugs. It's actually a physical dependency, which is why it is so hard to treat that kind of an addiction.
With all due respect, to both you and truly suffering alcoholics, if you can have a drink today and stop at one, than you were never an alcoholic. People with a true addiction like that can never go back. Perhaps you overindulged too much and it's great that you've gotten it in check, but let's not diminish real addiction and the life-long commitment it takes to get sober and stay sober.
Oh - I didn't understand what he was saying - yes, that makes sence - no, i did not get ill when i stopped eating candy - I just had intence cravings, sexual cravings, Im not sure how else to describe it!!
And with all due respect, your staement regarding alcoholism is false. Generally nothing works the same way 100% of the time for 100% of the people involved. I distincly remember my father, who I absolutly adore and who Im sure would give the world for me, crashing cars into the driveway then coming in and throwing anything he could get his hands on, including my plate full off food at the dinner table, against the wall right above my mother's head in a complete, drunken rage. This wasn't him. This was his demon - his alcoholism. it got worse...and worse...and worse, until everything was broken - our family, our trust. Mom eventually kicked him out, he got help, he came back, things are good. He stayed 100% away from alcohol for I believe 8 years. I remember the day he took a sip of a beer and my mom getting mad, and there wa san argument that persued...and we all cried...and he didnt do it again. But then as time passed he did - someone would bring a craft brew to an Xmas party, my cousin made his own beer, etc. he would try it, he would have one beer, and he would be fine. When we approchaed him and he explained that he no longer felt the desire to overindulge I believe him. it's been over 5 years since he's started having "one drink here and there" again. And hes fine - he can do it. He had a problem, he WAS an alcoholis - he IS an alcoholic if you ask him, he will always have that small part of him, but he doesnt let it control him anymore. he doesnt put himself in situations where he will be tempted - he wont go to a bar, he wont buy beer, but if i offer him a guiness, sure, he will drink that ONE guiness, and be content with himself. So please, do not doscredit mine and my families struggles and triumphs. You may not agree that sugar has the same addictive qualities as alcohol or other drugs, and thats fine, you may very well be right - but you might be wrong too. I only know things from my own experience.
I don't wanna try to be a white knight here... but I feel obligated to back this story up with my own. I don't get involved in sugar arguments, generally, except to attempt to occasionally crack wise... but, I have to stick my 2 cents ( Canadian, which are worthless ) in on addiction.
I basically 'was' this young lady's father. Not literally, but I couldn't navigate my own car home for the better part of 15 years, and if I did, I was always surprised to find it in the driveway. I drank most days, but not every day. What really made me an alcoholic, was the inability to stop after one drink. I could never go anywhere and have just one. One drink, and it was game on, every time. I would 'fail' those 'are you an alcoholic' tests, by a huge margin... where if you answered one or more questions YES, you probably are an alcoholic .... I'd be more like 80%.
I've been 'sober' for over 20 years now, and still kind of begrudgingly admit that I'm an alcoholic, even though I prefer terms like, 'retired drunk.' I often wonder if I could now, drink one beer, and quit. I honestly think I could... I feel like I could. But, to me, it's not worth it, because what if I couldn't. And I don't think I'd enjoy the feeling of really wanting that 2nd and 3rd and 12th beer.... and not being able to drink it. So, what's the point?
So, while this is entirely anecdotal... I most certainly was an alcoholic. I fit the profile, and answered all the questions to confirm it. That said, I didn't drink every single day, and I didn't suffer any major physical symptoms when I quit. There's a very real possibility that after all this time, I could drink in moderation, but the risks are too great for me to even consider it.
I return you back to your regularly scheduled program of argument over sugar, and addiction.
0 -
Too much protein = Sguar
Fruit = Sugar
Carbohydrates = Sugar.
Complex Carbohydrates = Gets used as sugar after 4 hours. lol
Done.0 -
haha rightToo much protein = Sguar
Fruit = Sugar
Carbohydrates = Sugar.
Complex Carbohydrates = Gets used as sugar after 4 hours. lol
Done.0 -
This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....
Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?
Sweet potatoes! My favorite low hassle way to prepare them: turn your oven on to the broiler, skin or wash 1 good sized sweet potato and chop it into even circles, then coat with coconut oil and broil until brown, then season with sea salt and cinnamon or pumpkin spice. I'm on day 5 of no sugar and these are totally saving my butt.
Sounds great! going to try tonight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group0 -
REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm0 -
I know enough about body building that 80% of your physique is Diet.
You're right-- but as long as you are in a calorie deficit, whether you eat sugar or not, you will lose weight. So why not just limit sugar but allow yourself a treat (if you want one).0 -
I know enough about body building that 80% of your physique is Diet.
You're right-- but as long as you are in a calorie deficit, whether you eat sugar or not, you will lose weight. So why not just limit sugar but allow yourself a treat (if you want one).
This. I can lose fat eating junk food everyday as long as Im eating at a deficit.0 -
REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm
That's not what either of those articles seem to me to be saying, although perhaps a more science-oriented person could elaborate if I am wrong.
The first is basically about how excessive consumption of sugar can lead to obesity which is itself a risk:Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.
I don't see how that supports a claim that there's something special about "refined" sugar vs. that found naturally in carrots or peaches. In addition, I don't see how a claim based on quite high consumption by Americans on average indicates that there is some health benefit to eliminating all added sugar. Indeed, if one finds it easier to stick to a weight loss plan or sustain a healthy weight by including sugar or simply prefers one's oatmeal with a bit of sugar, the same argument would say that it's healthier to do so.
The second is again about too much sugar and again doesn't seem to be limited to "refined sugar" at all, but is about a molecule called G6P which is said to accumulate from "eating too much starch and/or sugar."
As others have said already, I don't think there's much controversy that too much of almost anything is bad for you, and sugar is no exception. Where I am not following the argument is why that means everyone should always eschew "added sugar" in all cases.0 -
I know enough about body building that 80% of your physique is Diet.
You're right-- but as long as you are in a calorie deficit, whether you eat sugar or not, you will lose weight. So why not just limit sugar but allow yourself a treat (if you want one).
I have seen so much of this on the boards and members being attacked when they disagree and it just floors me. I have Hashimoto's and calories in/calories out DOES NOT WORK FOR ME and I am NOT the only one. Not everyone processes sugar the same way. Not everyone processes fat the same way. Not everyone can even absorb nutrients the same. Some people suffer from hormonal fluctuations, endocrine disruptors, and insulin resistance. Some have auto-immune diseases. For that matter losing weight (decreasing fat) and building muscle are not the same., but I often see them referred to like they are the same creature on these boards. Lipolysis is the breakdown of stored fat, hypertrophy is building muscle - good luck trying to do both at once.
Why is it so difficult to simply support someone's decision to make a decision for themselves they feel good about, that isn't detrimental to their health? OP didn't say they were giving up water or breathing or eating in general. This kind of bs is why I left here initially. Zero respect. No offense to the person posting what I quoted. I just grabbed it because of the calories in/calories out and it was easily available instead of going back through the thread.0 -
REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm
That's not what either of those articles seem to me to be saying, although perhaps a more science-oriented person could elaborate if I am wrong.
The first is basically about how excessive consumption of sugar can lead to obesity which is itself a risk:Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.
I don't see how that supports a claim that there's something special about "refined" sugar vs. that found naturally in carrots or peaches. In addition, I don't see how a claim based on quite high consumption by Americans on average indicates that there is some health benefit to eliminating all added sugar. Indeed, if one finds it easier to stick to a weight loss plan or sustain a healthy weight by including sugar or simply prefers one's oatmeal with a bit of sugar, the same argument would say that it's healthier to do so.
The second is again about too much sugar and again doesn't seem to be limited to "refined sugar" at all, but is about a molecule called G6P which is said to accumulate from "eating too much starch and/or sugar."
As others have said already, I don't think there's much controversy that too much of almost anything is bad for you, and sugar is no exception. Where I am not following the argument is why that means everyone should always eschew "added sugar" in all cases.
I'm not an expert, but refined sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose. It metabolizes differently and can spike blood sugar levels. The sugars found in fruits and grains are made up of a combination of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, it various by food source but it is accompanied by fiber - fiber slows the digestion process and helps keep sugar spikes in check. That applies to whole raw food, it begins to change when foods are cooked. There are (to me) a host of complicated monosacchirides and disacchirides and the enterocytes in the intestine walls play a part too. There are 2 different metabolic pathways. I slept through a LOT of my labs in college, I'm not really a science person, so I can't go any further than what I did. My cardiologist told me to restrict refined sugar and table salt - so I do. It goes beyond eating whatever a person wants in moderation.0 -
Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose. It metabolizes differently and can spike blood sugar levels.
Neither article you cited suggested that sucrose was less healthy for that reason. Also, I believe the whole thing about spiking blood sugar--much like when the potato is bashed similarly--is based on eating the item in isolation. I don't eat sugar in isolation, so I don't see why what it does when I do (and that's even apart from whether this effect even matters to a healthy person) is relevant.
I've yet to see any evidence that eating sugar in moderation is going to have any bad effects.
I actually agree with your other point about there being reasons for individuals to greatly restrict or eliminate stuff from their diets, and I have no issue with supporting someone who chooses to do so (although if it requires a great deal of support--not suggesting it does for the OP--and there's no particular medical reason for it I think the question why is totally valid too. But the conversation here has taken a different turn and seems to be debating the oft-asserted proposition that we all should cut out sugar to be healthier. Yet the evidence for that that has been given is that sugar has lots of calories (so does olive oil, among many other things, and adding a teaspoon of sugar in fact has something like 16 calories) or that Americans on average eat too much sugar (largely made up of "added sugar") which may well be true but isn't a good reason for me not to eat any at all.0 -
I know enough about body building that 80% of your physique is Diet.
You're right-- but as long as you are in a calorie deficit, whether you eat sugar or not, you will lose weight. So why not just limit sugar but allow yourself a treat (if you want one).
I have seen so much of this on the boards and members being attacked when they disagree and it just floors me. I have Hashimoto's and calories in/calories out DOES NOT WORK FOR ME and I am NOT the only one. Not everyone processes sugar the same way. Not everyone processes fat the same way. Not everyone can even absorb nutrients the same. Some people suffer from hormonal fluctuations, endocrine disruptors, and insulin resistance. Some have auto-immune diseases.
I don't think that is the case - almost everybody defending sugar has said 'if you have no medical issues....."
I don't think anybody is suggesting diabetics should not control their sugar intake, over and above what is required for weight loss.0 -
Quoted from http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
A diet high in sucrose (ie, >20% of energy) is associated with an elevation of plasma triglyceride concentrations.11,12 This increase is due to both increased hepatic secretion and impaired clearance of very-low-density lipoprotein. Triglyceride response to dietary sugar may vary, however, according to the amount of sugar and the presence of other nutrients.120 -
I shouldn't have posted the link to the abstract, apologies.0
-
Sugar and the consumption of sucrose vs. HFCS is complicated and subject to much disagreement among scientists and other credentialed experts. This article from Scientific American is a good analysis of the pros and cons of consuming fructose in a more pure form than what comes in fruits and vegetables. While I don't believe there is a definitive answer that is scientifically justified, lowering consumption (not necessarily eliminating) seems to be a reasonable expectation for any diet plan that attempts to create weight reduction. No reason to hate on sugar (like we have done for fats), and no reason to worship it on an altar either. Moderation and common sense along with some sustained physical activity, over and over again appear to be the solution. By the way - I do not believe that all calories are equal - certainly those that suppress insulin should be looked at differently that others that seek to make this pancreas product non-stop.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/0 -
My comments before still apply. It doesn't focus at all on how sucrose is different from fructose (except in likelihood of overconsumption), but focuses on ambiguous results of cohort studies and the theory that increased sugar consumption has led to a more overweight population, which itself is a health problem. NONE of it addresses my question about moderate consumption.As with most other dietary constituents, long-term trial data relating sugar consumption to the development of CVD events are unavailable. Longitudinal cohort studies relating sugar consumption to CVD are equivocal because of the many potential confounders that cannot be adequately controlled in the analyses. Shorter-term studies* show consistent adverse effects of sugar consumption on HDL and triglyceride levels, which could accelerate atherosclerosis. High sugar consumption may worsen diabetes control, and the combination of sugar with protein and fats promotes formation of dietary AGEs, which may be especially detrimental to those with diabetes. Although increasing the amount of sugar in an isocaloric diet does not directly lead to changes in energy expenditure or weight gain in controlled feeding studies, high-sugar foods, which are sweet and calorie dense, may increase calorie consumption and lead to weight gain. Furthermore, replacement of whole foods with high-sugar foods compromises attainment of adequate dietary vitamin and mineral intake from whole food sources.
In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided.
*Specifically, "There have been a number of studies that link sugar consumption to hypertension in animals. In humans, there is one report that high dietary sugar intake enhances the risk of CHD in diabetic individuals who use diuretics." How likely is it that the animal studies focus on moderate consumption?0 -
I shouldn't have posted the link to the abstract, apologies.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
The Summary and Conclusions from that link seem less definitive than the conclusions of the "sugar is bad" side of this argument:As with most other dietary constituents, long-term trial data relating sugar consumption to the development of CVD events are unavailable. Longitudinal cohort studies relating sugar consumption to CVD are equivocal because of the many potential confounders that cannot be adequately controlled in the analyses. Shorter-term studies show consistent adverse effects of sugar consumption on HDL and triglyceride levels, which could accelerate atherosclerosis. High sugar consumption may worsen diabetes control, and the combination of sugar with protein and fats promotes formation of dietary AGEs, which may be especially detrimental to those with diabetes. Although increasing the amount of sugar in an isocaloric diet does not directly lead to changes in energy expenditure or weight gain in controlled feeding studies, high-sugar foods, which are sweet and calorie dense, may increase calorie consumption and lead to weight gain. Furthermore, replacement of whole foods with high-sugar foods compromises attainment of adequate dietary vitamin and mineral intake from whole food sources.
In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.
ETA: Whoops. I guess this was already covered a few minutes ago.0 -
No reason to hate on sugar (like we have done for fats), and no reason to worship it on an altar either. Moderation and common sense along with some sustained physical activity, over and over again appear to be the solution.
I personally agree with this. However, you state them as a "both sides do it" thing and it's not. Here, it seems to me that we have people who think we should hate on sugar (like fats indeed), and no one at all who is saying that immoderate consumption is fine and dandy as a health matter or that we should all eat our requisite share of sugar each day as a sacrifice to the sugar god.0 -
REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm
That's not what either of those articles seem to me to be saying, although perhaps a more science-oriented person could elaborate if I am wrong.
The first is basically about how excessive consumption of sugar can lead to obesity which is itself a risk:Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.
I don't see how that supports a claim that there's something special about "refined" sugar vs. that found naturally in carrots or peaches. In addition, I don't see how a claim based on quite high consumption by Americans on average indicates that there is some health benefit to eliminating all added sugar. Indeed, if one finds it easier to stick to a weight loss plan or sustain a healthy weight by including sugar or simply prefers one's oatmeal with a bit of sugar, the same argument would say that it's healthier to do so.
The second is again about too much sugar and again doesn't seem to be limited to "refined sugar" at all, but is about a molecule called G6P which is said to accumulate from "eating too much starch and/or sugar."
As others have said already, I don't think there's much controversy that too much of almost anything is bad for you, and sugar is no exception. Where I am not following the argument is why that means everyone should always eschew "added sugar" in all cases.
I'm not an expert, but refined sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose. It metabolizes differently and can spike blood sugar levels. The sugars found in fruits and grains are made up of a combination of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, it various by food source but it is accompanied by fiber - fiber slows the digestion process and helps keep sugar spikes in check. That applies to whole raw food, it begins to change when foods are cooked. There are (to me) a host of complicated monosacchirides and disacchirides and the enterocytes in the intestine walls play a part too. There are 2 different metabolic pathways. I slept through a LOT of my labs in college, I'm not really a science person, so I can't go any further than what I did. My cardiologist told me to restrict refined sugar and table salt - so I do. It goes beyond eating whatever a person wants in moderation.
I think most people are respectful but we have to realize that there are 40 m people on this site. There have been many discussions but I think the general consensus is to just ignore those who are not.
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group0 -
REFINED sugar has been linked to heart problems and should be consumed sparingly, so good for you, OP.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614165135.htm
That's not what either of those articles seem to me to be saying, although perhaps a more science-oriented person could elaborate if I am wrong.
The first is basically about how excessive consumption of sugar can lead to obesity which is itself a risk:Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.
I don't see how that supports a claim that there's something special about "refined" sugar vs. that found naturally in carrots or peaches. In addition, I don't see how a claim based on quite high consumption by Americans on average indicates that there is some health benefit to eliminating all added sugar. Indeed, if one finds it easier to stick to a weight loss plan or sustain a healthy weight by including sugar or simply prefers one's oatmeal with a bit of sugar, the same argument would say that it's healthier to do so.
The second is again about too much sugar and again doesn't seem to be limited to "refined sugar" at all, but is about a molecule called G6P which is said to accumulate from "eating too much starch and/or sugar."
As others have said already, I don't think there's much controversy that too much of almost anything is bad for you, and sugar is no exception. Where I am not following the argument is why that means everyone should always eschew "added sugar" in all cases.
I'm not an expert, but refined sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose. It metabolizes differently and can spike blood sugar levels. The sugars found in fruits and grains are made up of a combination of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, it various by food source but it is accompanied by fiber - fiber slows the digestion process and helps keep sugar spikes in check. That applies to whole raw food, it begins to change when foods are cooked. There are (to me) a host of complicated monosacchirides and disacchirides and the enterocytes in the intestine walls play a part too. There are 2 different metabolic pathways. I slept through a LOT of my labs in college, I'm not really a science person, so I can't go any further than what I did. My cardiologist told me to restrict refined sugar and table salt - so I do. It goes beyond eating whatever a person wants in moderation.
I think most people are respectful but we have to realize that there are 40 m people on this site. There have been many discussions but I think the general consensus is to just ignore those who are not.
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
Ignore those who are not of the 40 m (?). Those who are/not discussing? I am so confused...0 -
I know enough about body building that 80% of your physique is Diet.
You're right-- but as long as you are in a calorie deficit, whether you eat sugar or not, you will lose weight. So why not just limit sugar but allow yourself a treat (if you want one).
I have seen so much of this on the boards and members being attacked when they disagree and it just floors me. I have Hashimoto's and calories in/calories out DOES NOT WORK FOR ME and I am NOT the only one. Not everyone processes sugar the same way. Not everyone processes fat the same way. Not everyone can even absorb nutrients the same. Some people suffer from hormonal fluctuations, endocrine disruptors, and insulin resistance. Some have auto-immune diseases. For that matter losing weight (decreasing fat) and building muscle are not the same., but I often see them referred to like they are the same creature on these boards. Lipolysis is the breakdown of stored fat, hypertrophy is building muscle - good luck trying to do both at once.
Why is it so difficult to simply support someone's decision to make a decision for themselves they feel good about, that isn't detrimental to their health? OP didn't say they were giving up water or breathing or eating in general. This kind of bs is why I left here initially. Zero respect. No offense to the person posting what I quoted. I just grabbed it because of the calories in/calories out and it was easily available instead of going back through the thread.
I have Hashimotos. It is still calories in, calories out. Your amount in to lose weight, maintain, or gain is different from anyone else's, true. But it is still the same equation.0 -
This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....
Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?
Get rid of your car and your television. These are the two main things in your life keeping you motionless. Once you get rid of these your body will be forced to move under its own power and muscular activity uses up sugar. Before cars and television, nobody seemed to worry about how much they were eating because obesity was virtually non-existent. Numerous studies have discovered a correlation between high rates of obesity and high rates of automobile ownership. The choice is yours to make; be a normal healthy weight, or burn gasoline while sitting motionless enclosed in a tin box. I eat nearly 4000 calories per day and at least a half pound of sugar daily and am pleased to report that I am slowly losing weight and feeling fantastic. At age 61, I have never owned a car.0 -
Hello! i just wanted to say Congratulations on your success in weight loss. Very admirable!0
-
I'll bet sugar is not as addictive as your car. That ton of tin is the most addictive substance in America and is the cause of most obesity.I'm having the same problem, and this is the main reason it has taken me so long to lose the excess weight. Sugar is the most addictive substance I have ever come across.0 -
Easiest thing in the world. All it takes is four simple letters: M-O-V-E. Of course, it always helps not to be addicted to the C-A-R.Hello! i just wanted to say Congratulations on your success in weight loss. Very admirable!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions