Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
LiminalAscendance wrote: »
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
Well played.
Agreed....very well played.
INDEED!
:drinker:0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Your argument is absurd. Someone tells you they can't go into Kohl's without spending at least $100, so they stopped going to Kohl's, and you want to argue that Kohl's is just like JC Penny.
That was a terrific job of understanding the argument
0 -
I didn't say you did.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not particularly better nutrient wise.Whopper is on a seeded bun with lettuce tomato onions pickles ketchup and mustard...so it just has less bread and a bigger single patty. mmmmmmmm
now i want.
https://www.bk.com/pdfs/nutrition.pdf
straining myself into a migraine trying to figure out where I typed that Whoppers are better nutrient-wise and I can't find it anywhere :"(
o cause I never made that claim.
i said i wanted to eat.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.
of course, there are those that live in reality and those that live in a fantasy world where all sorts of magical things happen
Fantasy world? Speaking of yourself?
For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place.
So only added sugars cause cravings, how do you isolate that against all the other sugars in said product? And how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose? Since n=1 are there any studies with large sample sizes that have found this to be true as well?
"For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation and elimination, for me, are just opposite sides to the same coin.
Both are restriction based, both require sacrifice, self discipline and self control.
Both are practical and sustainable for some, both are difficult and unsustainable for others.
...
So both are good and both work - is one better than the other? Not as far as I am concerned!
^This.
/thread
Except I don't view eating my donut tomorrow instead of today as sacrifice, because I'm still eating the donut within a period of time that I'll want it and I'm still eating other foos I love just as much. So this is why I do not eliminate (i.e. never eat) foods that I love with the exception of anything that basically results in allergenic responses.
You've sure got it all figured out. Remind me again how long this has worked for you?
Well over six months without any difficulties. And in those six months I've not once felt deprived because I ate the donut I wanted today, tomorrow. I wanted a 3rd helping of baked oatmeal last night, couldn't without not meeting my protein needs, so I ate it for breakfast this morning. Was very delicious.
Not once have I binged, either. Although within the same time frame when I "ate clean" and purposely eliminated food, I did binge on the "bad" food quite often. I was actually at one point binging on a few boxes of chocolate every weekend for months, I'm surprised I didn't gain that much weight in the process.
Six whole months. Fabulous.
Hope it carries you through grad school (or school), marriage, babies, grief, illnesses menopause and all that life has to offer.
Look, this may be the best thing since sliced bread (with hfcs). It may be the best fit for you. It may merely be a psychological thing for you. Which makes it no less real.
But it's foolish to think you've got it all figured out. For everyone. And that you can "school" folks (per the ignore feature thread where you're thrilled to be able to show people that you know more), on what's "best".
You're doing great! WONDERFUL. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But really, I worry that the maiden doth protest too much....
Considering I've had more success with this approach in six months than I did in the same time-frame of cutting out foods I loved, I am fairly certain it will work just fine. To basically claim that half a year's worth of experience eating a certain way, and happily, does not demonstrate its likely merit, is pre-emptive. Especially since I was fairly unhappy eliminating food and being strict with myself within the same time frame.0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.
of course, there are those that live in reality and those that live in a fantasy world where all sorts of magical things happen
Fantasy world? Speaking of yourself?
For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place.
So only added sugars cause cravings, how do you isolate that against all the other sugars in said product? And how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose? Since n=1 are there any studies with large sample sizes that have found this to be true as well?
"For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
Yup. I'm craving sausages right now. Is that because of its sugar? Nope, it's just because I crave the flavour itself. If I crave bananas, is it because of sugar? No, it's likely again because of the flavour. I crave flavours, not ingredients/macro/micros.0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
To me, the reasoning for cutting something out doesn't change the fact that you eliminated a lot of things and have been successful. Not sure why it would be unsuccessful for people wanting to eliminate added sugars. Many people cut them out thinking that is what causes them cravings....so what? Whether or not it's a placebo effect or not, if it works it works.
And this is from an IIFYM'r that doesn't eliminate anything. Your argument just isn't on point.
I did eliminate beets...cause...blech.
0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
Based on your response, would you consider the removal of "fast food," ice cream, and candy (for instance) from one's diet a valid method of weight loss, for an individual who does not "love" said foods?0 -
By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
0 -
By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
Just because you don't "love" a food doesn't mean it "tastes like ****" (to use your eloquent example).
There are some who casually eat calorically dense foods, but can do without them quite easily, in order to obtain a greater deficit.
I was just trying to clarify if the poster felt that those individuals were making an improper choice by practicing exclusion, instead of moderation.
But thanks for answering for her (unless you're a sock).0 -
LiminalAscendance wrote: »By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
Just because you don't "love" a food doesn't mean it "tastes like ****" (to use your eloquent example).
Where did anybody claim otherwise?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.
of course, there are those that live in reality and those that live in a fantasy world where all sorts of magical things happen
Fantasy world? Speaking of yourself?
For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place.
So only added sugars cause cravings, how do you isolate that against all the other sugars in said product? And how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose? Since n=1 are there any studies with large sample sizes that have found this to be true as well?
"For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
I gave you your answer. But let's rehash.
I stopped eating the added-sugar foods. I already determined, from my observations of my eating habits, that foods with natural sugars only do not cause those "cravings" (feelings). (Which I did say a few posts up in that quote-maze-from-hell.) I started eating keto. I stopped eating the foods I suspected triggered cravings; the cravings stopped. I have continued for 6 months eating at keto macros and eliminating those foods. The cravings have not returned. Cravings that plagued me and fueled binges for 17 years. I haven't written a paper on it. There is no evidence I could produce to you that you would accept in any case. And had I a personal lab crew who submitted a study to a peer-reviewed publication, and it somehow magically met the criteria for significance and accuracy, you would still refute it.
Now if you actually wanted to analyze my experience further, you could criticize that the increase in protein and fat, to offset the decrease in carbs, had a role to play. Perhaps. The phase of the experiment in which I increase natural-sugar carbs while still restricting added sugars is an investigation I'm leaving for maintenance. Perhaps, further out, I will be satisfied with my data for that phase and add back added sugars. Or not. At any rate, I still have weight to lose. What I'm currently doing is working, (no cravings, no binges) and I remain at a deficit, so I'm satisfied with my current progress and am content to leave that data-gathering for a later time. After all correlation does not equal causation. But from the data gleaned thus far, it's looking like added-sugar foods do have a link with cravings. For me. Proving causation is a trickier beast and will require more information over time. We may never achieve anything greater than an extremely strong correlation. But in practical application, which is real life, I'm not overeating for the first time in 17 years. And calorie deficit is the important result I am aiming to achieve. There is something to be said for results. How I personally achieve them is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. We don't walk around our whole lives in a scientific paper.
How's that?
I'm not finding any studies yet that confirm this phenomenon in large sample sizes, however. I suppose that my experiences haven't happened since there is no study. Oh well. I'll keep at it and keep losing weight without being plagued by the annoyance of the uncontrollable feeling like I need to rabidly binge constantly. Maybe one day it will be validated by a panel of scientists, but soon I'll hit maintenance and continue the next great experiment. In any case, I'll keep living my life, following this current plan, and I'll be healthy and a healthy weight. Wins, scientific validation or no.
Well, it all makes perfect sense to me, and as I'm the one who's satisfaction matters here, that's that. I'm off to do something productive. Like let Jillian Michaels try to kill me. Have a fine remainder of your day, perhaps despite some bleeding you may be experiencing from your eyes as the result of reading the answer you desired.
Yes, Sabine. This is a silly, silly board.
-1 -
I think the difference here is that she replaced gluten with gluten free variations. She didn't eliminate bread, she just changed the type of bread she eats. So, it's more akin to someone cutting out glucose and replacing it with lactose. Not really elimination, just substitution.LiminalAscendance wrote: »
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.
Well played.
It would be well-played if the reason for eliminating of a food item was for the same purpose. Since my elimination of gluten had nothing to do with weight management and does not pose the same psychological constraints as does eliminating pomegranates or chocolate bars or eggs (all things I love, none of which give me very bad physical discomfort), these two are not comparable circumstances.
To me, the reasoning for cutting something out doesn't change the fact that you eliminated a lot of things and have been successful. Not sure why it would be unsuccessful for people wanting to eliminate added sugars. Many people cut them out thinking that is what causes them cravings....so what? Whether or not it's a placebo effect or not, if it works it works.
And this is from an IIFYM'r that doesn't eliminate anything. Your argument just isn't on point.
I did eliminate beets...cause...blech.0 -
By that definition, EVERYBODY eliminates foods.
The idea that eliminating a food because you think it tastes like **** poses the same mental challenges as eliminating a food you love is....
....well, let's just say I haven't heard a coherent argument in support of such a position.
This. I find it bizarre when people say that. There are tons of foods I don't eat, but that doesn't mean I eliminated them.
I really do think that a lot of this "argument" is just because people have contrasting definitions of "elimination."0 -
If there is any particular issue with elimination it is whether it creates a sustained deprivation mindset or is particularly severe (which makes it likely the pendulum will swing the other way and bingeing is triggered or created.)
People eliminate food items all the time without dramatic consequences for religious or moral reasons for example. Those foods may even taste very good to them yet there is nowhere near the psychological impact. Why? Because the perceived deprivation is either low or made manageable by positive associations: being closer to god or feelings of morality.
So, elimination in dieting, even of very tasty items is not necessarily a bad thing or an unmanageable thing. It obviously depends on the individual clearly and their reaction. It may be a problem, it may not be.
A particular issue lies in when you put deprivation in a straight fight with willpower (like most traditional dieting). That is an abject failure as in the long term deprivation will kick the *kitten* of willpower and over eating will be the likely result. That is why newer thinking on weight regulation seeks to reduce suffering and the need for willpower to the lowest level possible. We are just not designed to be miserable for long periods without breaking.0 -
A particular issue lies in when you put deprivation in a straight fight with willpower (like most traditional dieting). That is an abject failure as in the long term deprivation will kick the *kitten* of willpower and over eating will be the likely result. That is why newer thinking on weight regulation seeks to reduce suffering and the need for willpower to the lowest level possible. We are just not designed to be miserable for long periods without breaking.
Good post! (By which I mean "I agree with that," of course.) ;-)
I especially agree with the last bit. Even if you don't feel miserable, if you rely on white knuckling it too much you will break because some day you'll be tired or depressed or just have used up all your will power getting a huge work project done or not losing it with your teenager.
So (not that I have everything figured out!), I think a lot of this is finding a strategy so you are relying on other things and having your way of eating be second nature. IMO, eliminating is not necessarily inconsistent with that--I know lots of successful vegetarians, after all, and some who keep kosher, and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
But it's still true that some people seem to be calling things "elimination" that I wouldn't!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation and elimination, for me, are just opposite sides to the same coin.
Both are restriction based, both require sacrifice, self discipline and self control.
Both are practical and sustainable for some, both are difficult and unsustainable for others.
...
So both are good and both work - is one better than the other? Not as far as I am concerned!
^This.
/thread
Except I don't view eating my donut tomorrow instead of today as sacrifice, because I'm still eating the donut within a period of time that I'll want it and I'm still eating other foos I love just as much. So this is why I do not eliminate (i.e. never eat) foods that I love with the exception of anything that basically results in allergenic responses.
You've sure got it all figured out. Remind me again how long this has worked for you?
Well over six months without any difficulties. And in those six months I've not once felt deprived because I ate the donut I wanted today, tomorrow. I wanted a 3rd helping of baked oatmeal last night, couldn't without not meeting my protein needs, so I ate it for breakfast this morning. Was very delicious.
Not once have I binged, either. Although within the same time frame when I "ate clean" and purposely eliminated food, I did binge on the "bad" food quite often. I was actually at one point binging on a few boxes of chocolate every weekend for months, I'm surprised I didn't gain that much weight in the process.
Six whole months. Fabulous.
Hope it carries you through grad school (or school), marriage, babies, grief, illnesses menopause and all that life has to offer.
Look, this may be the best thing since sliced bread (with hfcs). It may be the best fit for you. It may merely be a psychological thing for you. Which makes it no less real.
But it's foolish to think you've got it all figured out. For everyone. And that you can "school" folks (per the ignore feature thread where you're thrilled to be able to show people that you know more), on what's "best".
You're doing great! WONDERFUL. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But really, I worry that the maiden doth protest too much....
Considering I've had more success with this approach in six months than I did in the same time-frame of cutting out foods I loved, I am fairly certain it will work just fine. To basically claim that half a year's worth of experience eating a certain way, and happily, does not demonstrate its likely merit, is pre-emptive. Especially since I was fairly unhappy eliminating food and being strict with myself within the same time frame.
Again, GREAT. And I hope it keeps working for you throughout your life. But it's fool hardy to proclaim it the BEST way for all at every point in their lives. Which you regularly do.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Someone needs "evidence" for how they feel? What a silly board.baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.
Gotta get that quick edit / wikipedia copy & paste in
i'm not an idiot. i know the net calories isn't zero, but my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day. every gram of fiber isn't equal to a gram of starches or sugar, it doesn't cause a spike in insulin, it doesn't make me overeat, and it doesn't give me acid reflux like starches and sugar, so why would i care about 10-20 grams of fiber in my diet? we're talking inconsequential effects on my body.
unless sharting myself to do death is a thing that i haven't encountered yet
You sure about that? "personally i eliminated sugar all together" "my total carbs is still under 30 grams a day"
And who cares about insulin spikes, protein is highly insulinogenic
Yea, agree. There's a bunch of confusion within him.
i don't get it. you asked me if i completely eliminated carbohydrates and i told you i try to eat some fiber and there are incidental carbohydrates in a lot of food (such as nuts) and you say that's confusing. i still eliminated almost all the sugars. how is that confusing? you asked me if i eliminated them all and i wrote back that i eliminated all but a few that i get incidentally.
still confused?
He's being obtuse, because... there are sugars in veggies and fruits. You must say "I eliminated added sugars"... because semantics.
And that would be equally dumb, since the context was the elimination or non elimination of "sugar" reduced to eliminated cravings. So are you implying only added sugars cause cravings?
That depends entirely on who you ask, now doesn't it.
of course, there are those that live in reality and those that live in a fantasy world where all sorts of magical things happen
Fantasy world? Speaking of yourself?
For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place.
So only added sugars cause cravings, how do you isolate that against all the other sugars in said product? And how does added sucrose differ from naturally occurring sucrose? Since n=1 are there any studies with large sample sizes that have found this to be true as well?
"For me, added sugars cause cravings. For others, it's other kinds of carbohydrates. Some people have no issues with cravings at all. That is how it is in "Reality Land" where I live. You should visit it sometime. Nice place."
Where in that did I say that "only added sugars cause cravings"?
FOR ME, the more foods with added sugars I consume, the more of them I crave. I no longer eat these foods; I no longer crave them. Fruit is complete "meh." I couldn't possibly care less about fruit, never have. Higher carbohydrate foods with natural sugars don't cause me to crave them obsessively. Even ones with low amounts of added sugars don't bother me as much (bread), but things like cakes and cookies, which have both and often higher added sugars, I used to crave a lot.
As I'm unlikely to have the funds to hire out scientists and a lab any time soon to evaluate extensively various affects each sugar has on my body, I'll have to settle with employing the powers of human observation and deductive reasoning to solve my problems.
I'm not the only human who has this issue with craving different foods. Whether or not the results of my personal experiment belong in a peer-reviewed journal, it is as it is.
I avoid added sugars, so I don't overeat them, so I'm in control, so I stay in a deficit, so I lose weight. Is there a problem with that? What? Calorie deficit is occurring? Well, everything is right with the universe then! Carry on, MFP! The universe is in balance.
So you do live in a fantasy world, where you've eliminated all possible confounders to determine it's the added sugars are the things that are causing cravings. Anecdotes =/= evidence, if you're going to make such a silly claim you should be able to back it up
Back it up with what, precisely? I have no scientists on retainer. Reality is the world where I am 70lbs lighter and have not eaten my trigger foods once and I have no cravings. How do you scientifically quantify "craving" anyway? If you'd like to fund the research about one human being, be my guest. It wouldn't be accurate. Sample-size too small, no control. Fantasy world is the one wherein your argument isn't absurd. Nice trolling though.
Whose argument is absurd? The one who claimed added sugars caused them cravings and backed it with zero evidence?
Malbec wines give me migraines. Do I need to provide you with evidence of that?
You as well, they don't need evidence for how they feel, if you actually read what was written she claimed added sugars caused cravings, I simply asked how she determined that and controlled for various confounders
So if I say malbec causes my migraines I need evidence?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »and I've done kind of extreme things at Lent from time to time and not gone crazy.
It's funny you mention that. I was raised in a RC household and many years I would give up sweets and chocolates for Lent. Did I go crazy and binge on everything in sight? Well no. It was perfectly doable. Yet try it in the context of dieting and oh boy....
I think dieting is a cruel joke meant to create hell on earth personally
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions