A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
It looks like we've been misunderstanding each other. I was thinking of CI as strictly "calorie intake", not from the standpoint of calories needed to gain, maintain, or lose. No wonder why you guys were saying I wasn't making sense.0
-
For me, the bottom line is when I eat foods high in refined sugars, I'm hungry an hour later and just want more!!
When I stick to fruit for my sweet fix, I get none of the "side effects" I do with sugary treats.0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »But it's still CICO. I'm not seeing how this principle is being challenged just because the "calories out" part of the equation, assuming for sake of argument, increased to some degree for subjects on a HP diet.
I never said it challenged CI=CO, it challenges the notion that CO is independent of the composition of the diet.
Hence my question "are you saying weight loss is independent of diet composition at the same calorie level". So weight loss is not purely a function of calorie input, which you can see by regression analysis of weight loss studies.
As an engineer I would be confident that a properly measured energy balance would hold true in any circumstances. The variable reaction of the human organism to different macronutrients leads me to anticipate potentially different outcomes, to some extent, and this does appear to turn up in several studies.0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
0 -
Patttience wrote: »this is a very good question. First off, my advice is don't bother using the sugar counter at all unless you are a diagnosed diabetic. Nobody else needs to know their sugar count.
What we all need to do is know our carb count. You should aim to keep your carb count low.
The reason why i say the sugar counter is a waste of your interest is a) because there are more important factors and b), unless diabetic the body manages blood sugar levels naturally. If you just eat with your macros in an appropriate balance, you do not need to be concered about the sugar counter.
the sugar counter makes no distinction between refined sugars and natural sugars and it is hte refined sugars only that you need to reduce. You can do this without any sort of counter at all. You need to put significant effort into reducing processed foods because these are the foods that have high levels of added/refined sugar.
Why is refined sugar a problem? Because it intensifies the flavours of foods so that you ar enot happy with normal healthy food and prefer processed foods. Because it causes some people to over eat. And when you over eat refined sugar, it start the ball rolling and keep it rolling endlessly towards weight gain and ill health. Overeating causes imbalances in the hormones signalling systems in teh body. For instance leptin. People who eat a lot tend to develop leptin resistance which means your body can't help you restrict your eating at all because you are always hungry.
Just reducing yoru calories will result in correcting of this problem however, so long as you eat a lot of refined sugar, you will struggle to reduce your calorie intake and maitain it long enough to lose the weight and reprogram yourself into better eating habits.
The other things that you need to be eating more and don't when you eat too much refined/added sguars are vegetables and fruit and high fibre foods. Because meat is a strong flavoured food, people tend not to have any difficult eating eating enough meat and protein when they are also eating a lot of very unhealthy foods but fruit and vegetables tend to be less exciting to the palate becuase they have plainer flavours. To enjoy them, they would need to be eaten with other highly flavoursome foods.
So when you cut out all the procesed foods, you can start to enjoy less intensely flavoured foods, though they still do need ot be prepared in such a way as to be tasty. Hence to be honest, steamed vegies and skinless chicken breast was never going to satisfy anyone in the long term.
There are ways you can cook vegetables and other foods that are tasty adn interesting. Its important the food you eat to replace all the processed foods you may have eaten in teh past is tasty. So that suggests that people need to apply themselves to their cooking. Thsi is probalby one of hte hardest things for most dieters to do in this day and age when a) many can't cook b) most people are very busy and too tired too cook.
But i promise you if you make the effort to prepare your own meals, avoid processed fodos as much as possible and increase your vegetables and fruit you will find losing weight easier. You will also find keeping hte weigh off long term more sustainable.
People need to make a life long commitment to eating better. Its not enough just to do it for long enough to get hte weight off. If you don't commit to ongoing change, you will get fat again.
who da whata?0 -
I dare anyone posting on this site who states that refined sugar or simple carbs has no effect on weight loss to eat them at par for daily calorie intake and get back to me with your results. I replaced calorie for calorie simple carbs with complex carbs and lost the weight. No, I didn't eat or drink an excess of sugar calories, I replaced them 1 for 1 and lost the weight. Go figure duh.-1
-
Lourdesong wrote: »But it's still CICO. I'm not seeing how this principle is being challenged just because the "calories out" part of the equation, assuming for sake of argument, increased to some degree for subjects on a HP diet.
I never said it challenged CI=CO, it challenges the notion that CO is independent of the composition of the diet.
Hence my question "are you saying weight loss is independent of diet composition at the same calorie level". So weight loss is not purely a function of calorie input, which you can see by regression analysis of weight loss studies.
As an engineer I would be confident that a properly measured energy balance would hold true in any circumstances. The variable reaction of the human organism to different macronutrients leads me to anticipate potentially different outcomes, to some extent, and this does appear to turn up in several studies.
There would be variability due to things such as individual variations in genes for metabolic enzymes and other aspects that can't be controlled for in studies.
0 -
In fact, I was eating more in calories on the switch off simple carb to complex carb and lost the weight. BOOM! Done deal. Have a great day peeps!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
How did you count, because I don`t believe you...sorry.tedboosalis7 wrote: »In fact, I was eating more in calories on the switch off simple carb to complex carb and lost the weight. BOOM! Done deal. Have a great day peeps!
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I dare anyone posting on this site who states that refined sugar or simple carbs has no effect on weight loss to eat them at par for daily calorie intake and get back to me with your results. I replaced calorie for calorie simple carbs with complex carbs and lost the weight. No, I didn't eat or drink an excess of sugar calories, I replaced them 1 for 1 and lost the weight. Go figure duh.
Like this guy did BOOM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
"His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
There would be variability due to things such as individual variations in genes for metabolic enzymes and other aspects that can't be controlled for in studies.
Yes, there would be variation within the population for any given diet. There is also a variation between diet compositions that is independent of that - like the effect on glucagon and insulin varying with composition, or the thermic effect of protein. Three different food compositions, same calories, same subjects :-
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Lourdesong wrote: »But it's still CICO. I'm not seeing how this principle is being challenged just because the "calories out" part of the equation, assuming for sake of argument, increased to some degree for subjects on a HP diet.
I never said it challenged CI=CO, it challenges the notion that CO is independent of the composition of the diet.
Hence my question "are you saying weight loss is independent of diet composition at the same calorie level". So weight loss is not purely a function of calorie input, which you can see by regression analysis of weight loss studies.
As an engineer I would be confident that a properly measured energy balance would hold true in any circumstances. The variable reaction of the human organism to different macronutrients leads me to anticipate potentially different outcomes, to some extent, and this does appear to turn up in several studies.
Okay, so you're not challenging CICO, but then would you support someone assuming they have a higher burn (to whatever degree) than their calorie input and planned deficit would otherwise indicate simply because they eat a HP diet?
Basically, is a HP diet so consequential to calories out that it should impact how a HP dieter determines their plan? In contrast to a High Carb dieter.
I guess I'm not understanding your point..
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Storing fat is most definitely not called "inflammation." Please, if you don't understand the basic concepts, please stop trying to make things up just to try and sound smart.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
I never said macros don't matter.
and as someone already pointed out your understand of fiber is very limited.
For the billionth time..
calorie deficit = weight loss
macro/micro adherence for body composition and overall health
0 -
My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
There would be variability due to things such as individual variations in genes for metabolic enzymes and other aspects that can't be controlled for in studies.
Yes, there would be variation within the population for any given diet. There is also a variation between diet compositions that is independent of that - like the effect on glucagon and insulin varying with composition, or the thermic effect of protein. Three different food compositions, same calories, same subjects :-
I would be interested to read that article.
0 -
Agreed. There is a connection between excess body fat and inflammation, but excess body fat is not defined as inflammation.tigersword wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Storing fat is most definitely not called "inflammation." Please, if you don't understand the basic concepts, please stop trying to make things up just to try and sound smart.
0 -
The difference in TEF from the various macronutrients is minimal at best. You're talking a 0.1 calorie difference per gram. Any differences and variations can be attributed to metabolism, sure, but to attribute it solely to changes in diet composition is foolish. In fact, I've run numbers in other threads proving that moderate carb diets actually contribute higher TEF then a low carb diet, due to the fact that carbs take slightly more energy to digest than fat. Even so, using extreme ratio examples I could not come up with a difference of more than 40 or 50 calories. It's just not significant.My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
Attributing variances to inaccuracies in counting is a far more likely cause.0 -
My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
What if you have the wrong end of the stick, and the actual usable calories from protein is wrong. Bomb calorimeters and the human body may not be precisely comparable.
I`m not sure that the quantities assumed for the different macros are exact or even right as regards usable energy in a human but this doesn`t dismiss CICO in any manner.0 -
My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
The image you posted doesn't necessarily support that, instead it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss, but not in the context of calories/thermodynamics, or at least to any meaningful extent.
Seriously, I would really like to read the original article if you wouldn't mind posting a link to it, or the title.0 -
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
?!?!?!?!?!?!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JesslanRose wrote: »No, I don't have any medical conditions that are related to sugar. This is what usually happens - Tonight I have 530 calories left, but am over my sugar by 6. When my sugar is over I usually don't eat anything more because whatever is in the house (healthy or not healthy) has sugar as well and I'd go over even more. Because I'm still hungry I'm just wondering if I should ignore the sugar counts and finish my calories. Thank you so much for your replies!!
Don't worry about it. Obviously you would not want to get all of your calories from carbs, but if you are on a well balanced diet - a balance of fats, carbs and protein that will support your fitness goals, I would note let it concern me.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
no it is not.0 -
Wow, talk about splitting hairs. Take out the mention of body composition, and I said what one eats affects how hungry one would be, which would affect calorie intake. Unless hunger and fullness is not related to appetite, what part of that does not match up?ForecasterJason wrote: »
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
no it is not.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Wow, talk about splitting hairs. Take out the mention of body composition, and I said what one eats affects how hungry one would be, which would affect calorie intake. Unless hunger and fullness is not related to appetite, what part of that does not match up?ForecasterJason wrote: »
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
no it is not.
you said appetite affects CICO ..it does NOT
CICO is a formula for calculating calories in vs calories out
appetite is how hungry one is ..
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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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