Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
Spam flags are used by petty people to put the mark on someone's profile and try to hurt their feels. They are supposed to be used on people selling things so the mods can get it gone ASAP.
-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
-1 -
[/quote]
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
[/quote]
^^THIS is the only post I read besides the first one because I love Supernatural and Dean is my hollywood man crush.
My personal opinion of all this as far as limiting foods and weightloss is this : when you stress too much over what you should/should not be eating it creates even more needless anxiety than is even worth it.
First off, sugar does have it's place in the human body. Maybe not candy canes and lollipop sugars, but the nervous system feeds off of pure glucose.. which you know can also be found from carbs. But most people who low carb diet talk about a brain fog or lack of energy that's why it's so hard to stick to.... so lol at the title "the easiest thing" because that's just not true. BUT I'm going to out on a limb and *hope* you meant the quickest way to know what to cut down on when you are on a weightloss goal is to cut down on excess sugars. Yes easy to find where you are eating excess sugars and stop doing that- that's true. Focusing on cutting out "liquid calories" and sugar added foods WILL jump start you to your weigtloss goals, but that will only last so long before you feel kind of crummy. Which is the moderation part-- maybe 2 days a week you allow yourself to indulge in those drinks/foods for a meal or 2 to help you stay on track. You should try to invest in a routine SLOWLY that will help you stay consistent. Thinking one day you're going to cut excess sugars and drinks cold turkey forever is just lieing to yourself.
I remember my sugar filled addiction days and it took me 4 years of try again, fail again, fail better method in order to finally get to a point where my brain doesn't CRAVE sugar filled items to for quick energy (although I do take an appetite suppressant/fat burner called Liporidex.. that probably helped a lot too) BUT HECK i still drink a regular soda now and again and sweet tea . .. it doesn't taste as good anymore, but I do grab for one every now and again.
The truth is- the quickest way to weightloss is to 1) Hire someone who can help you figure out your nutritional macros, so you can see what the portion sizes for you even look like 2) if you can't afford someone there are great example diets you can start with as a basline on bodybuilding.com that are FREE 3) Once one of the above happens BE CONSISTENT with your nutritional intake and get out there and get moving for 30-40 minutes 2-3 times a week.
Don't stress yourself out with what type of exercise or whatever-- just do something that gets you moving! Go out dancing, go skiing, walk on a treadmill, walk outside-- you don't have to be doing MAX effort cardio in order to see results. Weightloss takes time - a weight loss goal of 1-2lbs a week is a realistic weightloss goal.. if you lose less than that you need to lower your calories by 500 calories/day if you lose more than that you can probably increase your calories by 500/day and still see a weight loss.
As as I'm concerned if you are steadily losing 1-2llbs a week whatever you are doing IS WORKING!!!! Who cares what others think? If it's working stick to it, when you see yourself plateau look at what other changes you can make, do it and keep going.
If you read something in a forum that sounds completely absurd or not logical for you to be able to follow- you're not there yet and don't stress about it! There are 23223687890109328913 ways to weightloss and the best way for YOU is the one you can stick to!
This message brought to you by an IFBB Professional Athlete.
Keep Moving Forward. 0 -
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
-1 -
The post is correct - if you cut back on processed sugars. I agree that eating fruit-based sugar is okay in moderation - like anything else, moderation is important. I lost 50 pounds over the past year completely changing my diet and not considering what I do as temporary. What I have done is permanent. I eat fruits and veggies, lean meats (emphasis on seafood), and I don't eat any kind of bread or pasta. I eat whole nuts - 1-3 oz per day. I workout regularly and I feel fantastic.
I don't miss processed sugar and foods one bit. I don't drink caffeine whatsoever. I have so much energy I feel like I am manufacturing it!0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
I have so much energy I feel like I am manufacturing it!
LOL -- good for you.
I need to eat more seafood. I'm not really comfortable cooking fish because I don't have experience doing it, so I tend to forgo fish when I'm looking at my proteins. But I love fish. I need just jump in and cook some and see how it turns out.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
No it's a petty thing that idiots use who don't agree with your post!
If I was a moderator here I would be kicking off the people who abuse the flagging system for their own selfish kicks.
-2 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
I disagreed with the bolded part…here I cut and pasted it for you..
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice"
actually it is not, because learning to eat the foods that you like in moderation is a much better approach then saying restrict a whole food group because one deems it as "bad"…
It just amuses me when people like to use the word "we" as if they speak for everyone and everyone agrees with them, but the rest of us are just unthoughtful louts….it is an easy way to set up a straw man …
0 -
Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
Curious Ana. When you switched to GF did you find yourself better able to moderate? That's been my experience with it (similar symptoms plus sleepiness).
0 -
Telling people they should do something most people find difficult isn't good advice - you have to tell them how to actually accomplish it for it to be good advice.0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
I disagreed with the bolded part…here I cut and pasted it for you..
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice"
actually it is not, because learning to eat the foods that you like in moderation is a much better approach then saying restrict a whole food group because one deems it as "bad"…
It just amuses me when people like to use the word "we" as if they speak for everyone and everyone agrees with them, but the rest of us are just unthoughtful louts….it is an easy way to set up a straw man …
My answer to someone saying "I cut out sugar because it's toxic and evil according to the latest woman's magazine" would be different than my answer to someone who says "when I eat sugar/fats/carbs I can't seem to stop"....the answer for that may include a period of elimination (for adherence and self-confidence) whereas the former would be along the lines of moderation.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »I dunno... maybe that should be the next diet craze... raw fat.
You mean like....say....downing spoonfuls of coconut oil?
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.
I didn't even read this entire post because you took the person's post completely out of context. She said food that helps you meet your micro/macro needs and any food, "healthy" or not, can do that for you.
Do not twist someone's words to fit your own agenda.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
So, elimination?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
Yes, that is what the bolded part would mean. Does not mean that I promote eliminating food one enjoys. The phrase was in fact bolded because I support the poster's differentiation between choosing not to eat something on that day because it's easier to simply eat it another day instead, versus thinking that the food cannot be worked into one's diet.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
I disagreed with the bolded part…here I cut and pasted it for you..
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice"
actually it is not, because learning to eat the foods that you like in moderation is a much better approach then saying restrict a whole food group because one deems it as "bad"…
It just amuses me when people like to use the word "we" as if they speak for everyone and everyone agrees with them, but the rest of us are just unthoughtful louts….it is an easy way to set up a straw man …
My answer to someone saying "I cut out sugar because it's toxic and evil according to the latest woman's magazine" would be different than my answer to someone who says "when I eat sugar/fats/carbs I can't seem to stop"....the answer for that may include a period of elimination (for adherence and self-confidence) whereas the former would be along the lines of moderation.
well in my opinion people will have long lasting and sustainable success if they learn to moderate their food choices instead of eliminating a whole food group..
when I first started on this path I believed all the BS that sugar is bad, or carbs will make you gain weight…so what happened, I would barely eat any carbs until I was a starving mess and then I would go find a box of crackers, or bag of chips, or whatever and shovel the whole thing down my stomach and then I would feel like crap; OR I would wait to eat ice cream and then crave it so bad that I would eat a whole pint or maybe even more.
eventually, I learned that these things are not "bad" and that I can eat them in moderation, still hit my goals, and enjoy the food that I like without viewing them as "evil"…
0 -
Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
Curious Ana. When you switched to GF did you find yourself better able to moderate? That's been my experience with it (similar symptoms plus sleepiness).
No. I stopped eating gluten almost 5 years ago, and it was not at all for dietary/weight management purposes. I continued to binge while eating both GF and "clean" - i.e. omitting foods that I deemed bad.0 -
I like how we've gotten to the part where the group objecting to the perceived implication of something that everyone must do to be successful is now making statements also implying that there's only one way to do things. But it seems to be ok this time.0
-
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
What other choice do you have?
Eliminate the food altogether. End of binges.
Once I eliminated desserts from my diet, my willpower miraculously recovered from its oddly lopsided weakness.
Hopefully you can keep that up for the rest of your life...
Well, I've been dessert free for 10 years, so I'm pretty comfortable saying it's working for me.
But it doesn't work for everyone, and I certainly don't advocate that everyone has to eliminate their trigger foods. Some one else has pointed out that people have to figure out what works for them and I agree. To each his own.
But back to willpower. Why is my willpower lopsided? It works just fine with most foods but doesn't work at all with some foods.
And I'm serious about having a serious discussion. I'm not interested in shaming anyone or winning anything. I just want to follow the discussion of willpower to some interesting and useful place.
Willpower: Duhigg references it like a muscle in his book on Habits. Kahneman references the ego depletion in his book. Daniel Kahnenman Thinking, Fast and Slow he discusses briefly the Baumeister studies and cites 'that an effort of will or control is tiring; if you have to force yourself to do something you are less willing or less able to exert self control when the next challenge comes". It seems we have a finite amount of willpower. For Duhigg he said the more we use it the better we become using it(think adaptation with muscles and the opposite muscle atrophy when we stop). Duhigg also mentions it is used best early and with the things we like to do least. Do the thing you want to do least for the day first thing. Sound familiar? Both of these books are excellent source material to incorporate into your daily lives in terms of understanding and managing your day around food and willpower.
Last, for bingers, one of the suggestions to stop binging is to not diet. Seems a recurring theme for some who binge, they continue to try and diet. This is one of many steps to stop the binging. Just discontinue dieting and it will help ease the binging. There are several more steps; fight boredom, exercise, proper rest, and so on. I have worked with a binger(it is not their only issue) for 6 months now and with their permission I am writing this out. Stress is their leading cause of binging. The act itself, from texture of foods, to tasting, their brain does in fact 'shut off' and they are satisfied and relieved. We roughly calculated the calories of approximately 800 in 4-5 minutes. I am just a friend to them who listens and tries to help; it is something that a doc is better equipped to assist them then a lay person like myself. They are getting help and those steps are slowly improving. They are quite frankly starting to thrive in life. Humbly proud of this person and am fortunate to watch their growth is immeasurable to me. What difference we make sometimes we will not know, but helping each other learn is a pretty good step.
0 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
0 -
Perhaps, then, the issue was with your mind? I don't spend time thinking about what I'm not eating. I eat so many fabulous things. I don't fret over the tiny hand full of things I voluntarily opt not to eat.Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
Curious Ana. When you switched to GF did you find yourself better able to moderate? That's been my experience with it (similar symptoms plus sleepiness).
No. I stopped eating gluten almost 5 years ago, and it was not at all for dietary/weight management purposes. I continued to binge while eating both GF and "clean" - i.e. omitting foods that I deemed bad.
But then I'm sure you know best. Lol0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
What other choice do you have?
Eliminate the food altogether. End of binges.
Once I eliminated desserts from my diet, my willpower miraculously recovered from its oddly lopsided weakness.
Hopefully you can keep that up for the rest of your life...
Well, I've been dessert free for 10 years, so I'm pretty comfortable saying it's working for me.
But it doesn't work for everyone, and I certainly don't advocate that everyone has to eliminate their trigger foods. Some one else has pointed out that people have to figure out what works for them and I agree. To each his own.
But back to willpower. Why is my willpower lopsided? It works just fine with most foods but doesn't work at all with some foods.
And I'm serious about having a serious discussion. I'm not interested in shaming anyone or winning anything. I just want to follow the discussion of willpower to some interesting and useful place.
Willpower: Duhigg references it like a muscle in his book on Habits. Kahneman references the ego depletion in his book. Daniel Kahnenman Thinking, Fast and Slow he discusses briefly the Baumeister studies and cites 'that an effort of will or control is tiring; if you have to force yourself to do something you are less willing or less able to exert self control when the next challenge comes". It seems we have a finite amount of willpower. For Duhigg he said the more we use it the better we become using it(think adaptation with muscles and the opposite muscle atrophy when we stop). Duhigg also mentions it is used best early and with the things we like to do least. Do the thing you want to do least for the day first thing. Sound familiar? Both of these books are excellent source material to incorporate into your daily lives in terms of understanding and managing your day around food and willpower.
Last, for bingers, one of the suggestions to stop binging is to not diet. Seems a recurring theme for some who binge, they continue to try and diet. This is one of many steps to stop the binging. Just discontinue dieting and it will help ease the binging. There are several more steps; fight boredom, exercise, proper rest, and so on. I have worked with a binger(it is not their only issue) for 6 months now and with their permission I am writing this out. Stress is their leading cause of binging. The act itself, from texture of foods, to tasting, their brain does in fact 'shut off' and they are satisfied and relieved. We roughly calculated the calories of approximately 800 in 4-5 minutes. I am just a friend to them who listens and tries to help; it is something that a doc is better equipped to assist them then a lay person like myself. They are getting help and those steps are slowly improving. They are quite frankly starting to thrive in life. Humbly proud of this person and am fortunate to watch their growth is immeasurable to me. What difference we make sometimes we will not know, but helping each other learn is a pretty good step.
Doesn't Duhigg also say willpower is the first to go in times of stress and habit takes us further? Or am I misremembering. Good post regardless.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.
I did get fat by eating regular food. Specifically, by being a small active person who ate a pretty nutritious diet (similar to how I eat currently, but maintenance calories) who went through some emotional crap and a highly stressful period, responded badly, and stopped being active without adjusting my calories. Doing the math, that amounts to a gain of about a lb per week, which seems right, without crazy amounts of treats or really any fast food required.
After I'd gotten fat again I said screw it and increasingly let my eating fall apart (emotional eating, previously mentioned fondness for Indian takeout after a long day at work), but I fundamentally never would have considered your menu moderation and I don't think anyone would.
I don't tell people they must eat what they were, but less, because that's not how my mind works. I do better with a positive goal than focusing on doing without (even quantities) so for me a radical change back into cooking and eating healthy worked and then I loosened up some. But I think many people think of eating healthy as giving up all the foods they like and eating diet stuff, and I didn't, and I don't think that's sustainable, so I do think start with your current diet and see where you are spending too many calories and modify based on that is good advice, which is basically moderation.
I agree that if people try to make no change but volume and were eating the kind of diet you assume, they will usually be hungry or unsatisfied. I think people learn this and adjust as part of the process.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It's ridiculous and happens to a lot of us. People abuse the flags.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
What other choice do you have?
Eliminate the food altogether. End of binges.
Once I eliminated desserts from my diet, my willpower miraculously recovered from its oddly lopsided weakness.
Hopefully you can keep that up for the rest of your life...
Well, I've been dessert free for 10 years, so I'm pretty comfortable saying it's working for me.
But it doesn't work for everyone, and I certainly don't advocate that everyone has to eliminate their trigger foods. Some one else has pointed out that people have to figure out what works for them and I agree. To each his own.
But back to willpower. Why is my willpower lopsided? It works just fine with most foods but doesn't work at all with some foods.
And I'm serious about having a serious discussion. I'm not interested in shaming anyone or winning anything. I just want to follow the discussion of willpower to some interesting and useful place.
Willpower: Duhigg references it like a muscle in his book on Habits. Kahneman references the ego depletion in his book. Daniel Kahnenman Thinking, Fast and Slow he discusses briefly the Baumeister studies and cites 'that an effort of will or control is tiring; if you have to force yourself to do something you are less willing or less able to exert self control when the next challenge comes". It seems we have a finite amount of willpower. For Duhigg he said the more we use it the better we become using it(think adaptation with muscles and the opposite muscle atrophy when we stop). Duhigg also mentions it is used best early and with the things we like to do least. Do the thing you want to do least for the day first thing. Sound familiar? Both of these books are excellent source material to incorporate into your daily lives in terms of understanding and managing your day around food and willpower.
Last, for bingers, one of the suggestions to stop binging is to not diet. Seems a recurring theme for some who binge, they continue to try and diet. This is one of many steps to stop the binging. Just discontinue dieting and it will help ease the binging. There are several more steps; fight boredom, exercise, proper rest, and so on. I have worked with a binger(it is not their only issue) for 6 months now and with their permission I am writing this out. Stress is their leading cause of binging. The act itself, from texture of foods, to tasting, their brain does in fact 'shut off' and they are satisfied and relieved. We roughly calculated the calories of approximately 800 in 4-5 minutes. I am just a friend to them who listens and tries to help; it is something that a doc is better equipped to assist them then a lay person like myself. They are getting help and those steps are slowly improving. They are quite frankly starting to thrive in life. Humbly proud of this person and am fortunate to watch their growth is immeasurable to me. What difference we make sometimes we will not know, but helping each other learn is a pretty good step.
Doesn't Duhigg also say willpower is the first to go in times of stress and habit takes us further? Or am I misremembering. Good post regardless.
I do search & rescue (volunteer, "weekend job"). It doesn't take more than a couple of emergency calls to realize just how big a range there is in individual's willpower or determination or fight or gumption or will to survive or whatever you want to call that behavioural cluster. It's just HUGE.
If this kind of variability of inherent behaviours exhibits itself in situations that are literally life and death, it should not be a surprise that they also manifesting more mundane settings, like drive thru lineups.
0 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
0 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
0 -
I didn't even read this entire post because you took the person's post completely out of context. She said food that helps you meet your micro/macro needs and any food, "healthy" or not, can do that for you.
Do not twist someone's words to fit your own agenda.
Ana, I think you missed the first sentence of my post, so I'll post it here again, and bold the bit that might help you out:DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
I'm not sure how I twisted stealth's words. Was it when I said I agreed entirely with stealth's post?
Or maybe this is what is tripping you up:
stealthq wrote: »
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
Maybe when you read stealth's post, you only saw the first sentence and didn't see the second sentence, where stealth clearly makes a distinction between foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet targets and foods that are treats.
Unless you want to argue that stealth didn't really mean two different kinds of foods, but that some people can fit McBurgers into their meals all day long while for someone else, a McBurger needs to be saved up for, so treats aren't really a special category but simply a shifting category based on the needs of the individual person. I'd agree with that, if that's what you meant. In fact, that would be the start of another very interesting and productive conversation.
But it's not the start of another interesting and productive conversation, because you didn't really explain yourself, you simply quoted something stealth said then accused me of twisting words to fit an agenda.
*ninja edit, sry
-1 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
I did'nt say it. Did you ? I must of missed it also. Still cant find it.
0 -
NHANES data for the first one, at least that has shown to be remotely accurate. Oh wait it's shown to be essentially worthless due to it's inaccuracy
Your next link is the Avena rat study? Are humans now rodents? Is the 12on/12off feeding protocol remotely similar to human eating behavior?
Drinking soda is associated with obesity? Also really weird sugar consumption peaked around '99, what happened to obesity rates since?
"But some people do, and there is scientific evidence backing up their experience."
LOL
Try again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
However, if you need studies to believe that some people who are trying to lose weight have an easier time when they limit added sugar:
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways differently
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
Don't worry that people who limit their added sugar during a diet won't be able to keep it up long-term. A dieter's sense of taste adapts. When someone regularly eats a lot of sweetened food, they will prefer sweet. After experiencing some time with less sucrose in their diet, their taste changes to less sweet. This is one reason eliminating and reducing sugar, even if it is temporary, can lead to better diet habits in the long run.
Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: role of repeated exposure.
Liem DG, de Graaf C
Physiol Behav. 2004 Dec 15; 83(3):421-9.
There is substantial scientific evidence that food cravings exist. There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins.
Not everyone gets cravings. Those who don't may not be the best positioned to give advise to those that do. They certainly aren't entitled to dismiss the experiences of those who have successfully gotten through cravings and reduced body fat.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
LOL
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
Again, that is a correlation and it is based on a food diary and food frequency questionnaire, how accurate have those been found to be? And do we need the pirates and global warming graph again?
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
No one denied that cravings exist, does it force the food into your mouth as well?
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways different
"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we report that individual variation in trait reward sensitivity (as measured by the Behavioral Activation Scale) is highly correlatedwith activation to images of appetizing foods (e.g., chocolate cake, pizza) in a fronto–striatal–amygdala–midbrain network"
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
Ok go on, how this has any bearing on what we've been talking about. Might also want to check the satiety index, what scores the highest? High carb/sugar laden food, hmmmm
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
"Numerous well-designed observational studies
have found positive associations between
sweetened beverage intake and obesity or
adiposity"
LOL
"Most importantly, two randomized controlled trials
showed that successful reduction of sweetened beverage
intake resulted in reductions in adiposity among children.
Similarly, four trials to increase intake of sweetened
beverages consistently showed weight gain among freeliving
adults. Two additional trials that failed to detect a
significant impact on adiposity were less appropriately
designed to address this hypothesis."
How was activity and other intake controlled for, did they rely on self reported intake?
"There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins."
Actually there is not and you have not presented any. Where are the studies that show in a deficit the evil added sugars are causing fat gain? Anything eaten in a surplus will result in some sort of gain, if you want to single out added sugars as causing fat gain then show it. Can you tell me the difference between added sugars and natural sugars, sucrose from apples vs added sucrose for example? OP did not call for reducing added sugars, he called for reducing sugars, strong reading comprehension
Difference of sucrose in pop from sucrose in an apple. 10 oz Dr. Pepper 125 calories, 32g high fructose corn syrup (mix of fructose and glucose, like sucrose); 100g apple 50 calories,10 g sugars, less than 1 gram of which is sucrose. Having most of the sugar come from the sweeter fructose, containing protein, and containing fiber, the apple is more satisfying than the Dr. Pepper despite having fewer calories. It would also keep the dieter full for longer, keeping the dieter from needing other snacks before the next meal, unlike the Dr. Pepper. Having the apple, a glass of water, and a tablespoon of peanut butter would be a decent snack. The 10 ounces of Dr. Pepper would not be a decent, nutritious snack despite having the same number of calories. This is the difference between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar 1 - there is generally more added sugar than the naturally occurring sugar it is being compared to (I especially appreciated how in your post you implied that insoluble fiber acts the same a sucrose inside the body. LOL) 2 - The naturally occurring sugar occurs with buffers (fiber, protein) that slow it's absorbtion into the body, lessening the impact to the system, allowing it to give energy for longer than the boom-crash you get with some sugar added foods (M&Ms, sodas, fruit bears, etc.) Bringing up fruit, fiber, and complex carbs, and claiming they are the same as sugar-added foods is flimsy, an argument as empty as sucrose's calories.
Most people understand that when someone calls for reducing sugars, they mean added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars in healthy foods, like vegetables and fruits. I have proven that consuming added sugars does not satisfy hunger, and so can lead to a dietary excess of calories, which would lead to weight gain. Sugars (added, as you seem to require the distinction), are, however, easy to remove, (OP's point), letting the dieter get rid of calories in order to be in a deficit without getting rid of foods with essential nutrients (like calcium, potassium, vitamin C, a variety of antioxidants, pectin, lutein and zeaxanthin, vitamin E, B vitamins, vitamin A etc., etc.). Removing added sugars by not drinking as much sugary pop has been shown to not result in an increase of calorie consumption, as you would expect if you simply remove any calorie-containing food from someone's diet. So, back to topic, (added) sugars are easy to remove from the diet, and removing them may make it easier (fewer cravings, less hunger) for dieters to have a caloric deficit without a nutritional defict.
That being said, I don't think sucrose is evil, and I believe in having the occassional treat. Pair the sucrose with some protein to make it less boom/crashy, and train tastebuds to enjoy lower levels of sweet when it works. Unfortunately, on a 1200 calorie/day diet, those treats can seem very occassional.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions