what roll does sugar play in weight loss?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Grubworm1943 wrote: »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?
It made a huge difference for me: when I reduced added sugars and refined (bleached, enriched) carbohydrates, I wasn't as hungry, didn't get cravings, didn't get that icky, panicky low blood sugar feeling.
YMMV. Good luck!
It made a huge difference for me as well for all the same reasons!
0 -
Wouldn't that water weight be minimal? Couldn't you, say, diet down to 3-5 pounds below your goal and let the water return you TO your goal?liekewheeless wrote: »Over all it's calories in vs calories out and a deficit will get you weight loss.
No matter what the calories consist of.
I personally have to be careful with carbs because they make me hungry. I get around that by eating the carbs first and finishing with my fats and proteins.
Cutting carbs will give you an initial big loss because your body will hold on to less water. As soon as you start eating carbs again, the water weight will come back.
Since I don't intend to eat a low carb diet forever, I rather eat my carbs while losing weight and not having to worry about the water weight coming back after I reach my goal and I go into maintenance.
0 -
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….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…???????
Please clarify for me, ndj -- which of these do you mean?
1. A calorie deficit is all you need to lose weight. It doesn't matter where those calories come from.
2. Your sugar calories should fit within your allotted carbs, and the rest of your calories should be from protein and fat.
There is absolutely no contradiction in those two statements. In fact, I'm quite certain most of the long-term successful people on this forum would agree with both, though I might add "when considering overall health" to the beginning of the second statement.0 -
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….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…???????
Please clarify for me, ndj -- which of these do you mean?
1. A calorie deficit is all you need to lose weight. It doesn't matter where those calories come from.
2. Your sugar calories should fit within your allotted carbs, and the rest of your calories should be from protein and fat.
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.0 -
Sugar is an issue for me after 40...I only eat organic but with carbs and sugar its important to maintain a good blood sugar level. I have a drink to help me with that and I do not even crave the sugar bc my blood sugar does not spike anymore. Im down 8 lbs in 2.5 weeks just from this very issue.0
-
We've never had obesity be this much of a problem in our society until recently. Also, as far as I know, we've been eating sugar in our diets for a verrrrryyyy long time as well. I think it goes to show that there must be another factor that is making people fat that isn't just sugar.
I'd look towards the fact that we now have more foods readily available to us (restaurants, stores, supermarkets etc) along with the means to spend money unlike how it was looking back decades or the last century.
That makes sense to me, along with how we've gotten used to expecting ginormous portion sizes when we go out to eat.
0 -
Sugar is an issue for me after 40...I only eat organic but with carbs and sugar its important to maintain a good blood sugar level. I have a drink to help me with that and I do not even crave the sugar bc my blood sugar does not spike anymore. Im down 8 lbs in 2.5 weeks just from this very issue.
You couldn't possibly be down because of weight fluctuations and the fact that you are eating less than 1200 per day + exercising?0 -
Grubworm1943 wrote: »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?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…???????
OP asks if sugar makes a difference.
Several people responded no, it doesn't make a difference.
Norm adds a touch of context about how blood sugar works.
I'll ask again -- is Norm wrong?
Norm may or may not be wrong, depending on the OP and the circumstances.
The OP specifically stated that he's asking about what happens IF you are in a calorie deficit, not if it's harder to stay in a calorie deficit. For some eating more carbs (what Norm is talking about) can make it harder to stay in a calorie deficit, but that's hardly universal. For example, Norm is saying that I should avoid potatoes, and yet I know from personal experience that I find potatoes satiating, so that would be terrible advice, for me.
For the record, I attempted to answer the OP's question and then make reference to some of the bigger issues, saying: "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." I think my answer is more correct than Norm's, because I allowed for differences from person to person in what is satiating and also for the fact that OP might not be eating lots and lots of sugar (as so many want to assume).0 -
afoust1986 wrote: »Grubworm1943 wrote: »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?
I think the important thing to remember from all of this is that if added sugar isn't helping you achieve your goals, there's nothing wrong with working to reduce it. However, it isn't a "magic solution." If you're a person who finds sugar to be a trigger for you (like myself), there's a good chance that reducing your sugar intake will help, if only because you're making smarter decisions with your food types and quantities. Personally, I'm the kind of person who can't have just 1 Girl Scout cookie. If I have 1, all the will-power is gone and I have to have another. But if I don't have that first one, I can resist the temptation.
In relation to non-weight loss goals, however, sugar is definitely an interesting thing... look in to some of the studies showing how sugar and cocaine similarly light up the brain. It's definitely interesting, whatever conclusions and decisions you choose to draw from them.
I'm with you on the cookies. I don't want to eat just one, and I'd rather not eat them at all than go through my day battling the desire to eat more.
I'm usually perfectly happy eating just one. I usually don't bother trying to fit a cookie in my calorie allotment (it's easier to fit in ice cream or a bit of chocolate and more macro friendly to do a protein bar and I'm kind of picky about baked goods in general, including cookies), but not because I go insane on the cookies most of the time (sometimes I'll want to overeat, and more likely if I've been over-restricting or otherwise eat it in a situation in which my will power is depleted).
I think the key point here, though, is that OP did not suggest that was an issue. He or she indicated that calories were correct and didn't mention a problem, but said that someone else had said he's (or she'd) lose lots better if sugar was cut.
Assuming there's no great benefit to cutting calories to a lower deficit, that's not true. It surprises me that so many are trying to defend it. Sure, there are benefits for many (people who eat it in excess) from cutting sugar, but here we know none of the details and yet people are presuming that he's (or she's) got all these insulin problems or is starving due to too many potatoes or is struggling with his (or her) calorie limit, none of which was said.0 -
In my experience lowering fructose consumption helps eleviate my cravings and I eat less. Plus it eliminates lots of processed foods just by avoiding it. There's growing research that sugar, specifically fructose, is quite detrimental in the amounts most modern people consume it. This is not just relevant to weight loss but also overall health and wellbeing. There are numerous other strings on here about quitting sugar to reference. I don't think a calorie is just a calorie because that ignores the different hormonal responses different substances get when consumed. We've got the mechanism to easily tell us when we've eaten too enough fat and even glucose, we do not have this mechanism with fructose which is why it's easier to just keep eating and eating it. And now I'm ready for the IIFYM people to start telling me I'm an idiot, that's OK, believe it or don't it's up to you.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Then why do those studies use rodents and doses beyond what a human would consume in real life? How come they don't account for excess calories? How come they use fructose by itself without glucose, which doesn't occur to often in nature?KombuchaCat wrote: »In my experience lowering fructose consumption helps eleviate my cravings and I eat less. Plus it eliminates lots of processed foods just by avoiding it. There's growing research that sugar, specifically fructose, is quite detrimental in the amounts most modern people consume it. This is not just relevant to weight loss but also overall health and wellbeing. There are numerous other strings on here about quitting sugar to reference. I don't think a calorie is just a calorie because that ignores the different hormonal responses different substances get when consumed. We've got the mechanism to easily tell us when we've eaten too enough fat and even glucose, we do not have this mechanism with fructose which is why it's easier to just keep eating and eating it. And now I'm ready for the IIFYM people to start telling me I'm an idiot, that's OK, believe it or don't it's up to you.
0 -
KombuchaCat wrote: »In my experience lowering fructose consumption helps eleviate my cravings and I eat less.
The only fructose I eat (well, in any quantities) is from fruit, and it doesn't cause cravings.
Assuming you mean HFCS, not sure why we are talking about it. The OP didn't say anything about it, and I don't assume people mean HFCS when they say "sugar."Plus it eliminates lots of processed foods just by avoiding it.
Avoiding sugar? Wouldn't for me. I guess I'd cut out the occasional flavored yogurt but most of what I eat is plain, and I guess I wouldn't eat ice cream (which I keep thinking about making myself anyway), but most of the sugary stuff I want is homemade. Unless they are "processed" because flour and sugar, that could be.the amounts most modern people consume it.
But we aren't talking in generalities, but specifics, and OP asked about weight loss, not health. If someone says "is the amount of sugar I'm eating bad for my health," well, that's a debate. I don't think the amount I eat is (it's not that much, WHO would be cool with me most of the time) but clearly many here would have issues with it because it's not zero (and I have no interest in deciding that an occasional piece of pie or cobbler or fancy chocolate is not "clean" enough for me and don't think that makes me unhealthy). But here it's not even that. People are pronouncing in a vacuum that others eat too much, without knowing our goals, experiences, diet, calorie limit, exercise, etc., because, well, Americans in general do, it doesn't really make sense.
0 -
KombuchaCat wrote: »In my experience lowering fructose consumption helps eleviate my cravings and I eat less. Plus it eliminates lots of processed foods just by avoiding it. There's growing research that sugar, specifically fructose, is quite detrimental in the amounts most modern people consume it. This is not just relevant to weight loss but also overall health and wellbeing. There are numerous other strings on here about quitting sugar to reference. I don't think a calorie is just a calorie because that ignores the different hormonal responses different substances get when consumed. We've got the mechanism to easily tell us when we've eaten too enough fat and even glucose, we do not have this mechanism with fructose which is why it's easier to just keep eating and eating it. And now I'm ready for the IIFYM people to start telling me I'm an idiot, that's OK, believe it or don't it's up to you.
I would question where you are getting your information from in regards to fructose. Below might be beneficial to take another look at it.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00357-8/fulltext0 -
KombuchaCat wrote: »In my experience lowering fructose consumption helps eleviate my cravings and I eat less. Plus it eliminates lots of processed foods just by avoiding it. There's growing research that sugar, specifically fructose, is quite detrimental in the amounts most modern people consume it. This is not just relevant to weight loss but also overall health and wellbeing. There are numerous other strings on here about quitting sugar to reference. I don't think a calorie is just a calorie because that ignores the different hormonal responses different substances get when consumed. We've got the mechanism to easily tell us when we've eaten too enough fat and even glucose, we do not have this mechanism with fructose which is why it's easier to just keep eating and eating it. And now I'm ready for the IIFYM people to start telling me I'm an idiot, that's OK, believe it or don't it's up to you.
Then don't make such silly statements?
Please post said research that lead you to these beliefs
0 -
I know longer listen/read these studies. Each one has only researched what/when/how they chose to study. The whole picture must be seen by each person/group that YOU or I are looking for. I would need to see a Bariatric Physician, Endocrinologist, Nutritionist, and Psychologist (yes, your mentally counts as well). (Please forgive any incorrect word or wording, has a stroke AFTER my major heart attack, but I believe you understand what I am saying.)0
-
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
not sure why that is amusing...0 -
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
Seriously. At this point, what are you arguing?
0 -
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
Seriously. At this point, what are you arguing?
Not arguing -- just pointing out the sadness that passes as a cogent position about weight loss and health.
CICO -- eat at a deficit and you will lose weight -- is a theory, not a metric.
0 -
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
Seriously. At this point, what are you arguing?
Not arguing -- just pointing out the sadness that passes as a cogent position about weight loss and health.
CICO -- eat at a deficit and you will lose weight -- is a theory, not a metric.
really?
so what other theory of weight loss is there besides CICO?
and I am still curious what you find so amusing about my post….or are you moving the goal posts again??0 -
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
Seriously. At this point, what are you arguing?
Not arguing -- just pointing out the sadness that passes as a cogent position about weight loss and health.
CICO -- eat at a deficit and you will lose weight -- is a theory, not a metric.
CICO is not a theory. It's science. Every reputable institute recognizes that. But at the same time, they recognize that macronutrients affect stuff like energy, body composition, satiety, nutrient absorption, etc..
And you may not be arguing, but you aren't providing anything helpful. The entire thread has been you trying to make a pedantic effort to disprove NJD which has been nothing less than a misconstrued fail.
If you want to provide something that is beneficial, that would be greatly appreciated, but at this point, it has been clearly pointed out where you have misinterpreted NJD's recommendations and responses.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
Seriously. At this point, what are you arguing?
Not arguing -- just pointing out the sadness that passes as a cogent position about weight loss and health.
CICO -- eat at a deficit and you will lose weight -- is a theory, not a metric.
CICO is not a theory. It's science. Every reputable institute recognizes that. But at the same time, they recognize that macronutrients affect stuff like energy, body composition, satiety, nutrient absorption, etc..
And you may not be arguing, but you aren't providing anything helpful. The entire thread has been you trying to make a pedantic effort to disprove NJD which has been nothing less than a misconstrued fail.
If you want to provide something that is beneficial, that would be greatly appreciated, but at this point, it has been clearly pointed out where you have misinterpreted NJD's recommendations and responses.
save your typing brother…
she will just move the goal posts again, or just try to invent something that someone said about something….0 -
emily_stew wrote: »Grubworm1943 wrote: »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?
Sugar can make you feel much more hungry. Long term sugar makes you more fat. Sugar raises triglycerides.
It is much more complicated and basically depends on your goals.
Calories in - Calories out works for weight loss, but because sugar blocks leptin you might be starving & eventually cave to eat much more! Not to mention the long term effects too much sugar has on your body.
I've been trying to curb my sugar intake and it is challenging- sugar is in everything! Once you start reading the labels, it is horrifying. I'm not including fruit in this though. Fruit has fiber and is awesome - particularly berries. I do believe in moderation, though, so I would never deprive myself the occasional treat.
Check out Dr. Mark Hyman. He is the director of functional medicine for the Cleveland Clinic and has written some great articles on sugar.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/03/06/top-10-big-ideas-detox-sugar/
Here is an article about sugar & leptin:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/26/sugar-affects-leptin-signals.aspx
I can't take anyone seriously if they think Drs Mercola and Hyman (hehee) are valid, unbiased sources.
Okay. Well, that was a little rude.
What about the Harvard Health Blog ?
POSTED FEBRUARY 06, 2014, 2:04 PM
Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease - Harvard Health Blog
Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
0 -
As I have stated numerous times, the answer is both.
if you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros - see twinkie diet
if you care about overall health and body composition then overall diet and hitting macros and micros and calorie deficit is what matters.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Edited to add....sugar consumption should be viewed with respect to dosage in overall diet and what ones goals are. But eating sugar in a calorie deficit will not affect weight loss, unless one has a medical condition that makes one sensitive to sugar.
LOL -- If you care about health.
Seriously. At this point, what are you arguing?
Not arguing -- just pointing out the sadness that passes as a cogent position about weight loss and health.
CICO -- eat at a deficit and you will lose weight -- is a theory, not a metric.
It would be science and since you have a difficult understanding why let me share with you how both worked for me.
Started 285 lbs in and out of hospitals, most important thing for my health at that time was to lose weight, tracked only CICO to start, dropped about 50 lbs, health greatly improved. My goals now shifted due to increased health came increased fitness, now not only did CICO matter but fueling my new fitness level, so understanding macros came into play.
That is an example of how both statements were true and not theory.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Grubworm1943 wrote: »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?
Sugar can make you feel much more hungry. Long term sugar makes you more fat. Sugar raises triglycerides.
It is much more complicated and basically depends on your goals.
Calories in - Calories out works for weight loss, but because sugar blocks leptin you might be starving & eventually cave to eat much more! Not to mention the long term effects too much sugar has on your body.
I've been trying to curb my sugar intake and it is challenging- sugar is in everything! Once you start reading the labels, it is horrifying. I'm not including fruit in this though. Fruit has fiber and is awesome - particularly berries. I do believe in moderation, though, so I would never deprive myself the occasional treat.
Check out Dr. Mark Hyman. He is the director of functional medicine for the Cleveland Clinic and has written some great articles on sugar.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/03/06/top-10-big-ideas-detox-sugar/
Here is an article about sugar & leptin:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/26/sugar-affects-leptin-signals.aspx
I can't take anyone seriously if they think Drs Mercola and Hyman (hehee) are valid, unbiased sources.
Okay. Well, that was a little rude.
What about the Harvard Health Blog ?
POSTED FEBRUARY 06, 2014, 2:04 PM
Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease - Harvard Health Blog
Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
Correlation =/= causation.
And I think the question you have to ask, is it sugar that increases heart disease or the increase calories which causes obesity which is leading to heart disease. My personal question is, are those with heart disease of a healthy weight or obese?
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Grubworm1943 wrote: »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?
Sugar can make you feel much more hungry. Long term sugar makes you more fat. Sugar raises triglycerides.
It is much more complicated and basically depends on your goals.
Calories in - Calories out works for weight loss, but because sugar blocks leptin you might be starving & eventually cave to eat much more! Not to mention the long term effects too much sugar has on your body.
I've been trying to curb my sugar intake and it is challenging- sugar is in everything! Once you start reading the labels, it is horrifying. I'm not including fruit in this though. Fruit has fiber and is awesome - particularly berries. I do believe in moderation, though, so I would never deprive myself the occasional treat.
Check out Dr. Mark Hyman. He is the director of functional medicine for the Cleveland Clinic and has written some great articles on sugar.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/03/06/top-10-big-ideas-detox-sugar/
Here is an article about sugar & leptin:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/26/sugar-affects-leptin-signals.aspx
I can't take anyone seriously if they think Drs Mercola and Hyman (hehee) are valid, unbiased sources.
Okay. Well, that was a little rude.
What about the Harvard Health Blog ?
POSTED FEBRUARY 06, 2014, 2:04 PM
Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease - Harvard Health Blog
Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
Correlation =/= causation.
And I think the question you have to ask, is it sugar that increases heart disease or the increase calories which causes obesity which is leading to heart disease. My personal question is, are those with heart disease of a healthy weight or obese?
I was going to say/ask the same thing...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