Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
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
at the end of the day it boils down to CICO..
if you drink soda and overeat you will be over weight..
if you drink soda and are in a negative energy balance you will lose weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a surplus you gain weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a deficit then you will lose weight.- CICO is only the beginning, my very young padawan. CICO is great for someone losing less than 20 pounds, and having no issues, but it is not enough for:
- Those with constant hunger during a defict
- Those with hormonal/medical issues
- Those with no idea how to eat in a healthy way
- Those trying to lose weight for more than a few months
- Those with cravings
- Those wanting to preserve lean mass and those wanting to maximize visceral fat loss
- Those wanting the most effective workouts (doesn't cardio burn more calories than strength? So according to CICO you should bother with strength training when trying to lose
So wrong...
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss,
We agreed on this?
You don't agree? I'd like to hear more.0 -
All but one.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss,
We agreed on this?
Everyone else seems to be in agreement that eating a healthy diet or a mostly healthy diet is the way to go, with treats being limited.
Some think of it as "moderation" and others think of it as "cutting the treats" but they're all doing the same thing.
ana has a different take. She believes everyone (except her) must include all the junk they like in their diet and that eliminating anything is wrong.
For herself, though...she can cut foods from her diet. It's not really eliminated if ana eliminates it because she has negative consequences if she doesn't eliminate it. It's also not really eliminated because she replaced it with something else. That's okay for her, but everyone else needs to include ALL the food they like. If they don't include ALL the junk food, they will gain weight.
Sadly, no sources were provided.0 -
Hmmm...a lot of quoting and flagging.
Backs away slowly...0 -
I will keep it short! I find the title to this thread (Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!) very interesting for the assumption it makes. It may have been easy for tennisdude2004 to do but if a person has had a life time addiction to consuming large amounts of sugar daily then the body and the mind will have a fight on its hand to change the habit. I personally have never had a love affair with sugar but I can understand that habits are difficult to change and only a strong will and desire will overcome the habit.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Loath as I am to assail the rock-solid argument I presented,, you are right -- my premise of the overweight person who got there by eating high-calories, low nutrition foods is really only one type of overweight person.
While my test subject is certainly a very common overweight person, your test subject is also common -- the adult who has a healthy diet but finds the pounds creeping on. For that person, "eat what you want, just in moderation," where moderation = your target numbers, is great advice.
Well played, madam!
And I'll go even further -- for the seriously overweight, they can eat what they want, just in moderation, and lose weight, because just cutting ANY calories is going to help them on their weight loss journey.
I really like your point about a radical change back to cooking. (There's another thread where the OP said she didn't like to cook and can people suggest quick and easy low cal delicious meals for her to eat so she doesn't have to cook, and a lot of people have told her to grow up and learn to cook.)
I've struggled with weight my whole life. When I eliminated my binge food, I was left with Cheerios and fast food and realized pretty quickly that I had better learn to cook.
I remember in the first several months just being so pissed off that I had to plan a meal, go to the grocery store, find the ingredients, prepare them, then cook them. So much time spent putting a meal together that would be gone in 15 minutes! But the alternative -- just keep gaining weight then die and have a crane take me out of the second story window -- was frightening, so I stuck to it, and it stuck to me. My lifestyle changed, permanently (so far).
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.
I did'nt say it. Did you ? I must of missed it also. Still cant find it.
Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
Except she didn't say that at all.
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.
Right. NO ONE said that.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.
Actually I said something along those lines based on my own personal experience!
My personal experience with moderation was it was impractical and totally unsustainable for my enjoyment of food. Would I recommend it to others - yes! Do i think it works for everyone - absolutely not.
-2 -
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
I said "telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Jdj must type too quickly because he cut a couple of words when he wrote "apparently eating in moderation is a 'terrible' idea".
I think eating in moderation is a great idea. But I also use a single serving of food* as my definition of a moderate amount of food. For instance, I eat Cheerios in moderation. I have 28 g (1 serving) for breakfast and 28 g (1 serving) for snack. I don't eat veg in moderation. I eat 332 g (four servings) of veg at lunch.
Other people think moderation means eating a tiny portion of a single serving of food. One example that was presented was buying a Hershey's chocolate bar, breaking off 1/7th of it, and eating it. Then, tomorrow, you get to eat another 1/7th, and etc.
I'd call that limiting or restricting food, but to each his own.
Other people think moderation means "eat what you want as long as it fits within your numbers" but when presented with a menu of junk food that fits within my numbers, they say "that's not moderation." I don't know why they say both "moderation is eat what you want as long as it fits within your numbers" and simultaneously "while that fits within your numbers, it is not moderation." They haven't explained themselves.
Point is, we all use the word moderation to mean different things, then we argue.
*Moe's Southwestern Grill has a single serving of nachos that logs in at 1700 calories. That ain't a moderate amount of food, so my definition definitely has exceptions. And it also turns out that the USDA's definition of "single serving" is based on a survey of regular folks who reported what they thought a single serving size of X food should be, so there's no science, just opinion, behind what a single serving size is.-2 -
That's very different.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Actually I said something along those lines based on my own personal experience!
My personal experience with moderation was it was impractical and totally unsustainable for my enjoyment of food. Would I recommend it to others - yes! Do i think it works for everyone - absolutely not.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That's very different.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Actually I said something along those lines based on my own personal experience!
My personal experience with moderation was it was impractical and totally unsustainable for my enjoyment of food. Would I recommend it to others - yes! Do i think it works for everyone - absolutely not.
Oh - then yes NO ONE said it.
0 -
lol..........I love this place, it's fun.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That's very different.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Actually I said something along those lines based on my own personal experience!
My personal experience with moderation was it was impractical and totally unsustainable for my enjoyment of food. Would I recommend it to others - yes! Do i think it works for everyone - absolutely not.
Oh - then yes NO ONE said it.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
I said "telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Jdj either types too quickly or doesn't realize that words serve a purpose since he cut some out when he wrote "apparently eating in moderation is a 'terrible' idea".
I think eating in moderation is a great idea. But I also use a single serving of food* as my definition of a moderate amount of food. For instance, I eat Cheerios in moderation. I have 28 g (1 serving) for breakfast and 28 g (1 serving) for snack. I don't eat veg in moderation. I eat 332 g (four servings) of veg at lunch.
Other people think moderation means eating a tiny portion of a single serving of food. One example that was presented was buying a Hershey's chocolate bar, breaking off 1/7th of it, and eating it. Then, tomorrow, you get to eat another 1/7th, and etc.
I'd call that limiting or restricting food, but to each his own.
Other people think moderation means "eat what you want as long as it fits within your numbers" but when presented with a menu of junk food that fits within my numbers, they say "that's not moderation." I don't know why they say both "moderation is eat what you want as long as it fits within your numbers" and simultaneously "while that fits within your numbers, it is not moderation." They haven't explained themselves.
Point is, we all use the word moderation to mean different things, then we argue.
*Moe's Southwestern Grill has a single serving of nachos that logs in at 1700 calories. That ain't a moderate amount of food, so my definition definitely has exceptions. And it also turns out that the USDA's definition of "single serving" is based on a survey of regular folks who reported what they thought a single serving size of X food should be, so there's no science, just opinion, behind what a single serving size is.
I believe the "eat whatever you want, in moderation" that is bandied about is pretty meaningless, just as last years "eat more to weigh less" was.
A new dieter needs to understand what moderation is, and, imho, should understand what healthy eating is. Many don't. I see many here who recommend "moderation" who never eat vegetables in moderation, in fact, they never eat them. Their diets are sorely lacking nutritious foods. Sure, they "meet their macros", but not with nutrient dense foods.
I think it would be super helpful FOR THE LONG RUN if folks learned to build a diet around nutrient dense foods, then, if they can easily and readily incorporate sweet treats, or salty treats, or fatty treats, or whatever into their diets, go for it.
But then, I agree with the OP that it's much easier for the long haul, to limit foods with added sugars. But I also lost weight without logging and find logging for the long haul unsustainable. Sure, some can "eat all the foods in moderation" without logging, but I'm betting the average woman my age, with my lifestyle would find it more challenging than simply limiting sugary junk foods.
Again: my goal was get to a healthy weight, with good health and fitness, and keep that healthy weight, while either improving or maintaining fitness. Perhaps others have different goals.
0 -
Good lord deidre how many flags have you gotten on this thread alone?0
-
neanderthin wrote: »
lol..........I love this place, it's fun.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That's very different.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Actually I said something along those lines based on my own personal experience!
My personal experience with moderation was it was impractical and totally unsustainable for my enjoyment of food. Would I recommend it to others - yes! Do i think it works for everyone - absolutely not.
Oh - then yes NO ONE said it.
I know right! I took a couple of months off of posting and now I'm back I realised why I missed it!
All this debaiting is fun!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Maybe some people just do not like cats
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't
Spam flag is like a badge of honor - it means your getting to them and their only response is the 'butt hurt button'
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
at the end of the day it boils down to CICO..
if you drink soda and overeat you will be over weight..
if you drink soda and are in a negative energy balance you will lose weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a surplus you gain weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a deficit then you will lose weight.- CICO is only the beginning, my very young padawan. CICO is great for someone losing less than 20 pounds, and having no issues, but it is not enough for:
- Those with constant hunger during a defict
- Those with hormonal/medical issues
- Those with no idea how to eat in a healthy way
- Those trying to lose weight for more than a few months
- Those with cravings
- Those wanting to preserve lean mass and those wanting to maximize visceral fat loss
- Those wanting the most effective workouts (doesn't cardio burn more calories than strength? So according to CICO you should bother with strength training when trying to lose
Nope. No matter how much or little you have to lose, it's always dependant on CICO. It works if you work it, and sometimes you have to work with obstacles beyond your control.
You don't have to exercise at all to lose weight.0 -
I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions