Calorie Deficits and Sugar

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,949 Member
    Options
    I'm having a hard time getting a straight answer in regards to calorie deficits and sugar consumption.

    I've seen many people, including on this site, claim that sugar doesn't matter so long as you hit your macros (mainly protein and fat) and stay at your caloric deficit.

    Others claim that the spike in your insulin levels from the sugar causes your body to store fat, and even if you're in a deficit, you will not be able to lose fat because of this. Some claim that even heavy weight training and a caloric deficit will not over-rule sugar consumption that is above 40-50gs.

    So which one is it?

    I have no idea what is true but I can tell you that the part I've bolded is absolutely not true. Or else I wouldn't have lost even on ounce. I don't know if you'd lose weight at the same speed or not, but you WILL lose weight in a deficit (and if you don't then a doctor must be consulted!).
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    No you didn't read anything I wrote. Which one of us is trolling again?

    Well, you started us off with this gem:
    The general consensus is that you can still gain weight even if you are at a very high calorie deficit.

    And now you're agreeing with this:
    This is not an issue when eating in a calorie deficit, as your body will be using body fat to some degree throughout the day to fuel itself.

    So which is it? :huh:

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

    Can you provide any example where people are shown to accumulate body fat over time when calories in < calories out?
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    I know there is a lot of people here with absolutely no license giving medical advice - but all calories are not equal, all carbohydrates are not equal. Same with fats and proteins. They are general groupings and the science is so much more complicated that it's getting laughable when people make it so generic.

    Sugar does have an effect on virtually all people regardless of the caloric intake. Find a medical journal that would say differently. No sugar or too much sugar is a very broad band. But between the two there are differences with the exact same number of calories on the human body.

    I think that sugar is the easiest thing to cut out of a diet. I'm pretty much on a diabetic diet, even though I don't have diabetes - but have found that keeping my sugar below 10-15g per day has not effect on my cognitive abilities nor my appetite.

    Evolutionary speaking, the amount of sugar Americans eat (I know this is a global site) is significantly more than 100 years ago and the farther back you go in time, the less sugars we had the opportunity to eat on a regular basis.

    Keeping sugar down has been very efficient and effective in lowering my caloric intake. And because I don't have much of a sweet tooth, its no big deal. I can give up sugar easier than meat (fish, fowl, beef...). Others may be different.

    Which is nice for you - but all it does is give you less calories.


    the answer is A) unless you have a medical condition sugar has zero affect on weight loss when consumed in a deficit.

    The sad part is that we live in a country that leads the world in every type of obesity imaginable. We're also nearing the point where over-eating kills more people than starvation. Some of the links posted are probably propaganda from the sugar industry. Yes, that's a thing. (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign) One could say this is the forefront of said epidemic and there are still more people defending sugar intake than not. This isn't funny it's dangerous.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,994 Member
    Options
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?

    Because essentially all I am doing by eating the sugar is creating a deficit while I eat it. So if sugar is still stored as fat automatically, what is the difference if I am burning an immense amount of calories while eating an abnormal amount of sugar compared to someone who eats a moderate amount yet burns it off during the day?

    You didn't read everything I wrote. Sugar is stored when the body can't process it. Otherwise the blood would become too dense and you'd die. Triggering this process too often leads to health problems. Obviously eating sugar while exercising heavily would not create this conditions.

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

    The pancreas prevents it from happening in unless you have diabetes. Again the point is that all calories are not the same and just having a calorie deficit doesn't mean you'll get the results you're looking for. There's a reason sugar is stored as fat more quickly than other nutrients. I find it interesting that people who have lost 70-80 pounds are suggesting they did so without any concern for their sugar intake.
    False, fats are stored quicker than sugar/carbs
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    The sad part is that we live in a country that leads the world in every type of obesity imaginable. We're also nearing the point where over-eating kills more people than starvation. Some of the links posted are probably propaganda from the sugar industry. Yes, that's a thing. (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign) One could say this is the forefront of said epidemic and there are still more people defending sugar intake than not. This isn't funny it's dangerous.

    Only on this web site. I have never heard of or seen of another weight-loss site where posters are pro-sugar.

    Most posters that you consider pro-sugar are actually anti-restrictions where not necessary (and can lead to adherence issues) and pro-balanced diet, which yes, can include sugar.

    Edited to fix quotes
  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    Options
    /puts spoon in Talenti. Looks around warily. Takes a bite. Puts spoon back in.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    It really comes down to ADDED sugar. You're not supposed to consume more than 32g of added sugar/day. This means your coffee, yogurt and other things that they add sugar to. Of course, there is natural sugar in fruit, veggies, etc. I think a lot of it is genetic. I have diabetics in my family and I seem to be VERY sensitive to extra sugar because when I really watch my added sugar intake I lose much easier. That being said, the more you have to lose the less little things like this matter because you can make small changes with big results... but once you get down to that last 20-30lbs it will matter more. Good luck!
    Why are we not supposed to eat more than 32g of added sugar? Who said that? What happens if we do?

    Why have so many of us continued to eat sugar, have hit our weight goal and even surpassed it?

    Keep in mind I'm not diabetic so please don't respond with some diabetes stuff.

    This could be the only diet web site where lots of posters tell you not to worry about sugar.

    Of course you have to worry about sugar. If you are just starting on your weight loss journey, and you are going from a daily intake of say 2,400 calories to 1,500 calories, why in the world would you want to waste (yes, waste) calories on a Coke or a donut, which do nothing for satiety?

    It's not easy to cut calories by 40%. But it is easier if you avoid refined sugar as much as possible. Skip the donut for breakfast and eat two eggs. Fewer calories, and more filling (at least for me and others I know). Drink Diet Coke instead of Coke. It's just common sense.

    Most people shouldn't be cutting calories by 40%. It's not healthy.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Here's how you know...Do the opposite of what the Keegan ninja person is saying.

    My god, and you wanna talk about bad info!

    Count your calories and watch protein/fats/carbs. That is what matters most.

    Anyone who'd like to argue, I'd also like to see your weight loss tickers. Because the proof is in the oh so delicious pudding.

    I can't believe there are so many people that believe there is no such thing as in insulin response. Google it. Ask a doctor.

    Keegan - Calories in/calories out worked for me. But there are so many studies out their debunking the notion that CICO is the one and only one way to go.

    Unlike some of the posters here, whose religion seems to be CICO, I have an open mind to other theories.
    There is not a single study "debunking" CICO.
  • Froody2
    Froody2 Posts: 338 Member
    Options
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?

    Because essentially all I am doing by eating the sugar is creating a deficit while I eat it. So if sugar is still stored as fat automatically, what is the difference if I am burning an immense amount of calories while eating an abnormal amount of sugar compared to someone who eats a moderate amount yet burns it off during the day?

    You didn't read everything I wrote. Sugar is stored when the body can't process it. Otherwise the blood would become too dense and you'd die. Triggering this process too often leads to health problems. Obviously eating sugar while exercising heavily would not create this conditions.


    I'm sorry, what? Blood would become too dense and you'd die? The only thing I'm aware of that can make your blood "dense" is polycythaemia or a clotting disorder, possibly. In what way would sugar kill you if it's not processed?
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    No you didn't read anything I wrote. Which one of us is trolling again?

    Well, you started us off with this gem:
    The general consensus is that you can still gain weight even if you are at a very high calorie deficit.

    And now you're agreeing with this:
    This is not an issue when eating in a calorie deficit, as your body will be using body fat to some degree throughout the day to fuel itself.

    So which is it? :huh:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/can-i-eat-all-my-calories-for-the-day-in-one-meal-and-still-lose-weight-649.html
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?

    Because essentially all I am doing by eating the sugar is creating a deficit while I eat it. So if sugar is still stored as fat automatically, what is the difference if I am burning an immense amount of calories while eating an abnormal amount of sugar compared to someone who eats a moderate amount yet burns it off during the day?

    You didn't read everything I wrote. Sugar is stored when the body can't process it. Otherwise the blood would become too dense and you'd die. Triggering this process too often leads to health problems. Obviously eating sugar while exercising heavily would not create this conditions.


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

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

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

    Blood sugar actually coats red blood cells (hemoglobin), causing them to become stiff. These "sticky cells" interfere with blood circulation, causing cholesterol to build up on the inside of your blood vessels. It can take months to years for the damage to your body to appear. The fragile blood vessels in your eyes, kidneys and feet are most susceptible, so problems are usually noticed first in those areas.
  • keegan2149
    keegan2149 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

    Ah, no.

    Not even close.

    That's what most apps give me for gross burn. What is close? Why does that matter? I thought the point was whether or not you're storing fat during a 6 hour cycling session?

    Because essentially all I am doing by eating the sugar is creating a deficit while I eat it. So if sugar is still stored as fat automatically, what is the difference if I am burning an immense amount of calories while eating an abnormal amount of sugar compared to someone who eats a moderate amount yet burns it off during the day?

    You didn't read everything I wrote. Sugar is stored when the body can't process it. Otherwise the blood would become too dense and you'd die. Triggering this process too often leads to health problems. Obviously eating sugar while exercising heavily would not create this conditions.

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

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

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

    Because your body can only handle so much energy in one sitting (just like you can’t overfill your gas tank for 1,000 mile trip) hardly eating anything all day and then eating most of your calories in one sitting can cause problems:
    Your blood sugar levels fluctuate instead of holding steady, which can result in a loss of lean body mass. In other words, it’s not fat that’s being lost but potentially muscle. And we don’t want to lose muscle. Lowering your lean body mass means your body burns less calories. Not good.
    Eating when your blood sugar is low (because you’ve hardly eaten anything all day) causes you to release more insulin — which means more fat is produced.
    You then get into a vicious cycle of your body losing lean body mass, producing more fat, and burning less calories.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Because your body can only handle so much energy in one sitting (just like you can’t overfill your gas tank for 1,000 mile trip) hardly eating anything all day and then eating most of your calories in one sitting can cause problems:

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

    For most people, most of the time, they're firmly in the noise.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,401 MFP Moderator
    Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories