what roll does sugar play in weight loss?

Grubworm1943
Grubworm1943 Posts: 50 Member
edited November 12 in Food and Nutrition
ive always believed weight loss was all in the calories in vs calories out. but someone told me today id probably lose more if i cut out all sugar except natural sugars and the occasional treat. does it really make a difference how much sugar i have as long as im under my calorie goal?
«1345

Replies

  • kristen6350
    kristen6350 Posts: 1,094 Member
    Hasn't for me. I don't watch sugar or sodium and I'm down 10 lbs in 2 months, with only 13 lbs total to lose.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    No, it does not.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    No, it doesn't make a difference. Unless you have a medical reason to watch it, you don't need to cut it out.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Nope.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    ive always believed weight loss was all in the calories in vs calories out. but someone told me today id probably lose more if i cut out all sugar except natural sugars and the occasional treat. does it really make a difference how much sugar i have as long as im under my calorie goal?

    That person is an idiot
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    It adds empty, non-productive calories. Other than that, it is calories like any other. Nutritionally, your calorie allotment could be better spent.
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    Maintaining blood sugar level is key to sticking to a good eating routine. When your sugar level spikes, then falls, it induces the hunger pangs and we make bad food decisions like munching on food with no nutrition at work. Hence, one should avoid the starchy carbs as well as sugars.

    2 reasons - to stabilize blood sugar, and to avoid filling up on food with no nutritional value. Sure you can eat all your calories in MnMs, but your body will break down if you don't feed it the good food.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    nope, calorie deficit is all you need.

    unless you have a medical condition that makes your sensitive to sugar, but even then it is CICO….you just have to adjust the in side….
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    kdeaux1959 wrote: »
    It adds empty, non-productive calories. Other than that, it is calories like any other. Nutritionally, your calorie allotment could be better spent.

    so sugar does nothing? really?
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    sugar does provide inefficient carbs, and excess is stored as fat
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    NormInv wrote: »
    Maintaining blood sugar level is key to sticking to a good eating routine. When your sugar level spikes, then falls, it induces the hunger pangs and we make bad food decisions like munching on food with no nutrition at work. Hence, one should avoid the starchy carbs as well as sugars.

    2 reasons - to stabilize blood sugar, and to avoid filling up on food with no nutritional value. Sure you can eat all your calories in MnMs, but your body will break down if you don't feed it the good food.

    nice straw man argument about eating M&M's all day. Please tell me how is making that argument, or where OP ever mentioned that. You can eat sugar and in the context of an overall diet not have to word about it.

    Protein spikes insulin too, so should that be restricted…???????
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    NormInv wrote: »
    sugar does provide inefficient carbs, and excess is stored as fat

    Lol, so in humans how common and efficient is dnl?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    NormInv wrote: »
    sugar does provide inefficient carbs, and excess is stored as fat

    even if I am in a calorie deficit? So sugar defies the laws of physics and math???
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2015
    ive always believed weight loss was all in the calories in vs calories out. but someone told me today id probably lose more if i cut out all sugar except natural sugars and the occasional treat. does it really make a difference how much sugar i have as long as im under my calorie goal?

    No, it does not.

    Most people don't track very well (especially people who don't actually track, like most dieters), and it's often an easy way to cut calories without tracking, though, if someone currently eats lots of treats. Some people might find it an easy way to sustain a deficit, but others won't.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    ive always believed weight loss was all in the calories in vs calories out. but someone told me today id probably lose more if i cut out all sugar except natural sugars and the occasional treat. does it really make a difference how much sugar i have as long as im under my calorie goal?

    No it doesn't. There may be some issues with feeling full because some high sugar foods can also be high calorie foods so you don't get much for your calorie allotment and others, like fruit juices, give you the calories without making you feel full at all. Satiety is a personal thing and, in order to lose without feeling hungry, you want to eat the most satisfying foods you can which, for some means high fat, for others means high protein, and others find high carb foods satisfying. Most feel good and lose well with a variety.

    There is no difference whatsoever between natural and processed sugars, your body treats them the same. Sucrose (table sugar) comes from cane or beets. It also comes from maple syrup. Your body doesn't care, it will metabolize all sucrose the same.

  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    Acg67 wrote: »
    NormInv wrote: »
    sugar does provide inefficient carbs, and excess is stored as fat

    Lol, so in humans how common and efficient is dnl?

    as common as sqp

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    this thread is destined for un great things….
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Roll? Cinnamon.
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    Sugar is high in calories make...plus no nutritional value. Anyone who says just east less to lose weight is missing the link that the body needs to have nutritional food to sustain itself, otherwise you will start having medical issues, calorie deficit or not.

    Read up on Lyle McDonald
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    NormInv wrote: »
    Sugar is high in calories make...plus no nutritional value. Anyone who says just east less to lose weight is missing the link that the body needs to have nutritional food to sustain itself, otherwise you will start having medical issues, calorie deficit or not.

    Read up on Lyle McDonald

    Sugar has 4 cals a gram, so we should avoid fat cause it's high in calories?

    Funny lyle says dnl isn't common in humans
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    NormInv wrote: »
    Sugar is high in calories make...plus no nutritional value. Anyone who says just east less to lose weight is missing the link that the body needs to have nutritional food to sustain itself, otherwise you will start having medical issues, calorie deficit or not.

    Read up on Lyle McDonald

    in the context of an overall diet you can eat in a calorie deficit, hit your macro/micro goals, and consume sugary treats, and you will lose weight.

    calorie deficit for weight loss
    micro/macro adherence for body composition and overall fitness

    who is saying eat 100% sugar all day??????
  • Grubworm1943
    Grubworm1943 Posts: 50 Member
    NormInv wrote: »
    Maintaining blood sugar level is key to sticking to a good eating routine. When your sugar level spikes, then falls, it induces the hunger pangs and we make bad food decisions like munching on food with no nutrition at work. Hence, one should avoid the starchy carbs as well as sugars.

    2 reasons - to stabilize blood sugar, and to avoid filling up on food with no nutritional value. Sure you can eat all your calories in MnMs, but your body will break down if you don't feed it the good food.

    i eat food with nutritional value. but i have a treat every night if i have the calories for it. i dont eat all my calories in sweets. haha
  • JimFsfitnesspal
    JimFsfitnesspal Posts: 313 Member
    Norm is correct in everything I read. You should listen to him.

    Limit carbs to around 100 and sugars to as low as you can and you will lose weight by the fistfuls. I'm down 25 pounds of fat and 43 to 35 inch waist in the last year. I added 5 pounds of muscle.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Here's the thing. Sure, it's important to eat the majority of your calories in healthful, nutrient rich food. I eat plenty of veggie, fruit, meat, dairy and whole grain. And I've also been able to maintain my goal weight for over two years because I also manage to fit in my favorite treats, including chocolate, ice cream, cake, and pie. For many of us, draconian diets are temporary.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Norm is correct in everything I read. You should listen to him.

    Limit carbs to around 100 and sugars to as low as you can and you will lose weight by the fistfuls. I'm down 25 pounds of fat and 43 to 35 inch waist in the last year. I added 5 pounds of muscle.

    you lost weight because you restricted carbs and sugar into a calorie deficit. Reducing carbs to 100 had nothing to do with it..you could of kept carbs at normal levels, ate in a 500 calorie deficit, and lost 25 pounds….

    and what is this 100 magic number??????
  • This content has been removed.
  • JimFsfitnesspal
    JimFsfitnesspal Posts: 313 Member
    Every person's body, goals, and knowledge levels are different Grubworm. Get the facts before you decide. It is obvious that there is alot of disinformation on the net and here. Let me know if you have questions.

    Yes, 100 grams of carbs is the magic number. Yes, you can gain muscle while losing weight... in fact the more muscle burns more fat.
  • minipony
    minipony Posts: 194 Member
    I think it is best to turn to research. Here are a few studies.
    #1 Boston Children's Hospital Clinical Trial

    In 2012, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a clinical trial performed by a group of researchers that investigated whether dietary composition affected weight loss.[14] The study tracked 21 individuals. The individuals first lost at least 12.5% of their body weight, and were then placed on one of three different dietary regimens:

    A diet high in protein and fat, but with fewer carbohydrates
    A diet low in fat, emphasizing whole grains, fruit and vegetables
    A diet with a low glycemic index, focusing on the type of carbohydrates consumed

    The results showed that the first group burned the most calories, but also displayed increased markers of stress and inflammation in the body, which can lead to cardiovascular disease, among other health problems. The second group burned fewer calories than the other two groups, and also displayed certain metabolic indicators that typically precede weight gain. The third group burned a reasonable number of calories, but notably did not display increased markers of disease-causing stress. The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed does affect the number of calories burned by an individual. This conclusion is in direct contrast to what the commonly held belief implies.
  • minipony
    minipony Posts: 194 Member
    This one is a study on monkey's and not with sugar, but the findings are that different kinds of calories have different outcomes (metabolism, health risks etc.) and that the body processes them differently. Kind of interesting. Read and make your own decision.

    Wake Forest University Research
    In 2007, a group of Wake Forest University researchers published a report from a six-year longitudinal study in which they fed two groups of monkeys the same number of calories and dietary levels of fat, with the only difference being that one group was fed foods higher in trans fat. The high trans fat group gained 30% more belly fat compared to their lower trans fat counterparts. The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed do have an impact on body weight.

    It should be noted that the physical activities of the monkeys were not taken into account during this study and the sample size was 38
  • minipony
    minipony Posts: 194 Member
    Here is also something else to consider: Calorie amounts found on food labels are based on the Atwater system. The accuracy of the system is disputed, despite no real proposed alternatives.
This discussion has been closed.