A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
Some great tips here. I, too, have noted that I am often close or over the sugar level given on MFP. I monitor it, but I don't stop eating because of it. I agree that it's the processed foods (anything in a box, a can, or prepackaged with a long shelf life--like a Twinkie). However, people become diabetics (Type II) as adults, and their diet, weight, lifestyle, genetics do influence whether they get any metabolic disorder like Diabetes, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, etc. So, monitor refined/processed carbs (sugars are carbs=glucose). But focus on general healthy eating, eat fresh whenever possible, and keep moving! Good luck with your goals.0
-
Some great tips here. I, too, have noted that I am often close or over the sugar level given on MFP. I monitor it, but I don't stop eating because of it. I agree that it's the processed foods (anything in a box, a can, or prepackaged with a long shelf life--like a Twinkie). However, people become diabetics (Type II) as adults, and their diet, weight, lifestyle, genetics do influence whether they get any metabolic disorder like Diabetes, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, etc. So, monitor refined/processed carbs (sugars are carbs=glucose). But focus on general healthy eating, eat fresh whenever possible, and keep moving! Good luck with your goals.
I agree SD2bfit, it is those processed food that seem to get me as well. We don't have Twinkies here, are they a chocolate bar or what?0 -
Paul_Collyer wrote: »I'm not going to provide any links to studies as there are so many saying various things and I can only go on my own personal experience.
But I feel cutting sugar and carbs and increasing fat intake has improved my weight loss rate. Essentially I think when you are obese you will lose fairly easily from pure CICO but I found once I got closer to a normal BMI and also physically very fit ( I run ) it was far harder to lose at the same rate. So this last autumn I decided to reduce sugar to 60g a day and try to eat 35 % carb, 40% fat and 25% protein as part of a modest calorie deficit ( 1800 a day ). The result? A weight loss rate similar to my original one back in 2012, and I am now very close to target weight.
So I conclude, for myself at least, that sugar control is a key component of a calorie based weight loss process. And the good thing is, I love to eat fats and protein anyway - and happy to get my sugar mainly from fresh fruits in the morning!
ummm yea no ..
you reduced sugar (higher calorie foods) and replaced them with lower calorie foods and started losing weight, so it is still CICO.
You could of done the same thing with other food groups and seen similar results.
so it is not sugar ..
0 -
Some great tips here. I, too, have noted that I am often close or over the sugar level given on MFP. I monitor it, but I don't stop eating because of it. I agree that it's the processed foods (anything in a box, a can, or prepackaged with a long shelf life--like a Twinkie). However, people become diabetics (Type II) as adults, and their diet, weight, lifestyle, genetics do influence whether they get any metabolic disorder like Diabetes, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, etc. So, monitor refined/processed carbs (sugars are carbs=glucose). But focus on general healthy eating, eat fresh whenever possible, and keep moving! Good luck with your goals.
Two pieces of fruit and a serving of Greek yogurt will put you over the sugar limit that MFP sets. It's notoriously low, so don't use it to gauge anything meaningful.
0 -
Some great tips here. I, too, have noted that I am often close or over the sugar level given on MFP. I monitor it, but I don't stop eating because of it. I agree that it's the processed foods (anything in a box, a can, or prepackaged with a long shelf life--like a Twinkie). However, people become diabetics (Type II) as adults, and their diet, weight, lifestyle, genetics do influence whether they get any metabolic disorder like Diabetes, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, etc. So, monitor refined/processed carbs (sugars are carbs=glucose). But focus on general healthy eating, eat fresh whenever possible, and keep moving! Good luck with your goals.
It's incredibly easy to go over the sugar goal with just fruit or fruit and dairy, which is one reason I track fiber instead. I don't eat much boxed stuff of the sort normally called processed here, but in the summer when I eat lots of fruit I'd have been over all the time, yet lost at the same rate I was in the spring when my sugar was lower.
I do find, as Paul said, that keeping other sources of sugar low helps me lose, but I believe that's because I tend to stay in a deficit better and log better. If I eat the offered homemade cinnamon coffee cake at my book club (and I might, because it's delicious) it's a lot of work to log it at all accurately (typically, mm, this is great, can I have the recipe?). So more often I estimate and the more of that stuff I end up eating, the more the temptation to estimate low or forget something. I know that was my issue at the holidays. If I just stick to true moderation and things easy to measure--like my favored half cup of ice cream--it's just CICO.
I suppose most of this was a digression, sorry. It's the thread! :-)
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://youtube.com/watch?v=f51IfMX7iKg
3 minutes long. Doctor states sugar cravings are due to low protein in take and or low on minerals.
Posts do pop up stating to eat more protein to cut sugar cravings on MFP sometimes.
The same doctor (naturopath) advocates for detoxing, going gluten free for everyone, that we should take his supplements because we are all mineral deficient, and features regularly on Natural News.
I think he's distorted/misinterpreted the protein leverage hypothesis.0 -
In the end it's all CICO for weight loss, but that's where it stops. How healthy you are at the end depends on what you ate to get there. High carb restricted eating will help you lose weight, but I'd be interested in seeing your bloodwork.
I would like to point out that some of the longest living and healthiest countries in the world have very high carb diets... ever hear of blue zones? What about vegans or vegetarians?
Look, we all agree that you should get a variety of foods from whole sources so you can hit your macro and micronutrient goals. But it's obtuse to think restricting carbs will 1. automatically make you lose weight, and 2. make your blood work better. If you lose weight, regardless if you are KETO, IIFYM, vegetarian, vegan, 80/10/10, paleo, etc... your blood work will improve. Lets face it, obesity/weight control has a bigger affect on a blood panel than the types of food you eat.
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?
Because I rather be nice and not issue warnings for every little violation (I only delete post that violate the rules as noted here:http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines) . People don't need to vent in a thread for receiving a warning (which protesting mod action is a violation). I rather keep the thread clean and let the discussion move on (because hijacking the thread is also a violation). But if the members would like me to start issuing warnings for every small violation, I will. I rather play nice though because we are all adults.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
If that was true, then people wouldn't be able to lose on the twinkie diet. You lost weight because you ate foods that kept you full longer, which helped you achieve a deficit. Ever major scientific organization already recognized CICO causes weight loss and macronutrients affect composition of loss and health.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://youtube.com/watch?v=f51IfMX7iKg
3 minutes long. Doctor states sugar cravings are due to low protein in take and or low on minerals.
Posts do pop up stating to eat more protein to cut sugar cravings on MFP sometimes.
As with Zhost's posts to Sara, why this assumption that everyone has issues with sugar cravings or blood sugar spikes? If you do, change your diet so you don't, but don't give general advise based on it to everyone or claim that everyone should try to eliminate or mostly eliminate sugar because of it.
I'm not eating added sugar in January for my own personal reasons, but not because I think it's inherently unhealthy and I don't assume my own reasons apply to anyone else, which seems obnoxious. If anyone else also wants to limit sugar of course I think there can be reasons for that. But the question in this thread was whether it's necessary for weight loss and health, and that's not the case. (Health is related to overall diet, not one ingredient.)0 -
If you want the science behind the effects of sugar on your body and your health, you might want to bookmark this site and make a habit of visiting it for up-to-date information: sugarscience.org/
"SugarScience is the authoritative source for evidence-based, scientific information about sugar and its impact on health."
The average person can tell you their opinion about the subject, but if you're looking for more science and less opinion, you'd do yourself a HUGE favor to educate yourself using more professional sources. You can even ask these doctors and educators (many of them professors at well-known medical schools) questions.0 -
My approach is kind of both ways. I first focused on getting the deficit (Total Calories) with out worrying too much about what I ate. Pretty much smaller portions. Which is where I am now and I am loosing about 3-4 lbs a month, which suits me fine. Now I an going to start trading out some "bad" food for "good" food.
To be honest I do not want to be a purest when it comes to all the food I eat. I enjoy eating too much to do that, but I do need to make some adjustments though. Slow and steady works for me. Changing one meal out of the week adds up over time.
Common sense at last! This is how I got started too. I just cut portions and limited the obviously high calorie/low nutrient foods for the first 2 months, then started focusing on getting a good balance after mu Dr. gave me a maximum daily carb target. 83 lb down at this point.
I have treats when I can fit them in with everything else, or I make them work when it is a special occasion. Yes, I sometimes don't eat fruit with lunch when I know there will be birthday cake with dinner. The horror!
0 -
If you want the science behind the effects of sugar on your body and your health, you might want to bookmark this site and make a habit of visiting it for up-to-date information: sugarscience.org/
"SugarScience is the authoritative source for evidence-based, scientific information about sugar and its impact on health."
The average person can tell you their opinion about the subject, but if you're looking for more science and less opinion, you'd do yourself a HUGE favor to educate yourself using more professional sources.
I agree with your last sentence, which is why I disagree with the linked site being considered an authoritative source on sugar - the site is run out of UCSF and includes Lustig as one of its researchers. It is not an unbiased source of information on the topic.0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
The average American is fat because they consume too many calories for their activity levels. Period. Americans are getting fatter because they're increasing the amount of calories consumed over time.
Study:
plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001050
Here's another study that shows the macro nutrient breakdown for the change in calorie consumption.
Study:
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/4/836.full
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fat is inflammation. It depends on what kind of inflammation it is - visceral or subcutaneous.
I don't believe that is correct. Fat is not inflammation. Fat is inflammatory. I can see how one could confuse that...
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
You lost 50 pounds because you were in a state of negative energy balance. Period end of story...0 -
If you want the science behind the effects of sugar on your body and your health, you might want to bookmark this site and make a habit of visiting it for up-to-date information: sugarscience.org/
"SugarScience is the authoritative source for evidence-based, scientific information about sugar and its impact on health."
The average person can tell you their opinion about the subject, but if you're looking for more science and less opinion, you'd do yourself a HUGE favor to educate yourself using more professional sources. You can even ask these doctors and educators (many of them professors at well-known medical schools) questions.
And, they're biased toward no added sugar, which makes them non-authorative.
FAQ0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
Sadly you can't fight faith with facts...
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
Sorry, not true...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions