Have you Quit Sugar?
Replies
-
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...
I am not talking about only obesity. Over consumption of sugar has ill effects and has been proven in some studies where people only did consume exess amounts of sugar with out overall exces calories.
Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the paper's senior author, said:
"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation. But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking.
You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."
most of Lusting's stuff has been refuted and/or debunked..
here is Alan Aragon pretty much taking Lusting apart: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please least the ill effects that you are claiming sugar causes...
I don't refute the claim that if you eat in moderation in particular sugar you should be fine. But in reality when 99% of everything has sugar and not everyone eats the way you do or thinks the way you think you will get issues with people over the overconsumption of sugar. Whether they are thin or heavy.0 -
After watching a documentary about sugar I am really considering quitting altogether.
Has anyone else done this and what was your experience??
Many years ago, I tried a diet that attempted to severely limit a lot of sugars-both added and natural- and replaced it with artificial sweeteners. My experience was that it was not sustainable long term and not satisfying. I discovered artificial sweeteners trigger migraines for me.
I have lost as much weight without cutting sugars from my diet, do not have dental problems or ill health. I usually don't exceed my sugar goal because I don't have much of a sweet tooth.
If you have issues with overeating sugar or health problems then I would say start cutting back on foods with added sugar but don't stress about eliminating all sugars from your diet.0 -
I haven't QUIT sugar, but I do track it and I don't often choose to eat things with ADDED sugar0
-
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?
No, I said no such thing, but thanks for playing psychic. When you take a shot, the alcohol arrives at your liver in one dose. When you drink a beer, the alcohol trickles in to your liver over time. The same is true of sugars. Carbs that are digested immediately will hit the liver in one dose. Carbs that are digested slowly over time will reach the liver in smaller amounts over a longer period. No matter if you have the shot or the beer, the strawberries or the pop tart, your liver doesn't function any faster or slower. What it's not using is stored as liver fat.
Again, you are describing the other food surrounding the sugar, not the sugar itself. The body turns all sugar into glucose and uses them the same. The other parts of the food will determine how fast the sugar hits the bloodstream, not the type of sugar. eat 5 g of glucose, sucrose, maltose, fructose, lactose, or any combination and your blood sugar will rise the same way. Eat that same 5 g along with protein, fat, and especially fiber and your blood sugar will rise the same way. How your body uses sugar has nothing to do with the sugar itself.
0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »MrCoolGrim wrote: »Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...
I am not talking about only obesity. Over consumption of sugar has ill effects and has been proven in some studies where people only did consume exess amounts of sugar with out overall exces calories.
Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the paper's senior author, said:
"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation. But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking.
You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."
most of Lusting's stuff has been refuted and/or debunked..
here is Alan Aragon pretty much taking Lusting apart: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please least the ill effects that you are claiming sugar causes...
I don't refute the claim that if you eat in moderation in particular sugar you should be fine. But in reality when 99% of everything has sugar and not everyone eats the way you do or thinks the way you think you will get issues with people over the overconsumption of sugar. Whether they are thin or heavy.
I eat plenty of sugar and my blood work and other health markers come back nearly perfect at my annual physical.
you can keep fear mongering sugar all you want, but there is a lot more that goes into "illness" then just sugar consumption.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?
No, I said no such thing, but thanks for playing psychic. When you take a shot, the alcohol arrives at your liver in one dose. When you drink a beer, the alcohol trickles in to your liver over time. The same is true of sugars. Carbs that are digested immediately will hit the liver in one dose. Carbs that are digested slowly over time will reach the liver in smaller amounts over a longer period. No matter if you have the shot or the beer, the strawberries or the pop tart, your liver doesn't function any faster or slower. What it's not using is stored as liver fat.
its the same amount of alcohol. And if I have nothing to drink over the next four hours it gets detoxed out of my body the same way a beer would....0 -
What happened ndj1979?0
-
After watching a documentary about sugar I am really considering quitting altogether.
Has anyone else done this and what was your experience??
I haven't cut out all sugars, but I don't use refined sugar. I eat fruit and sometimes cook with honey when I'm having a craving (homemade ice cream made with heavy cream and honey is awesome). I just use LESS than what the recipe usually calls for. But in general, i avoid desserts and foods with added sugars. I try to eat foods with as little processing as possible.
What I've found:
I don't have to nap after work anymore
I have energy ALL day
I sleep better
I lost 30 lbs
My skin cleared up
Hope this helps - I say go for it.
0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »What happened ndj1979?
what do you mean, what happened?0 -
Why are all your posts locked up?0
-
emiliabuchanan wrote: »After watching a documentary about sugar I am really considering quitting altogether.
Has anyone else done this and what was your experience??
I haven't cut out all sugars, but I don't use refined sugar. I eat fruit and sometimes cook with honey when I'm having a craving (homemade ice cream made with heavy cream and honey is awesome). I just use LESS than what the recipe usually calls for. But in general, i avoid desserts and foods with added sugars. I try to eat foods with as little processing as possible.
What I've found:
I don't have to nap after work anymore
I have energy ALL day
I sleep better
I lost 30 lbs
My skin cleared up
Hope this helps - I say go for it.
And there's plenty of people who eat refined sugar and never had those problems to begin with. So what does that mean?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »emiliabuchanan wrote: »After watching a documentary about sugar I am really considering quitting altogether.
Has anyone else done this and what was your experience??
I haven't cut out all sugars, but I don't use refined sugar. I eat fruit and sometimes cook with honey when I'm having a craving (homemade ice cream made with heavy cream and honey is awesome). I just use LESS than what the recipe usually calls for. But in general, i avoid desserts and foods with added sugars. I try to eat foods with as little processing as possible.
What I've found:
I don't have to nap after work anymore
I have energy ALL day
I sleep better
I lost 30 lbs
My skin cleared up
Hope this helps - I say go for it.
And there's plenty of people who eat refined sugar and never had those problems to begin with. So what does that mean?
It means some people's bodies tolerate sugar better than others. If she's having issues with eating sugar and wants to cut it out of her diet, I don't see why people are arguing with her. It worked for me.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?
No, I said no such thing, but thanks for playing psychic. When you take a shot, the alcohol arrives at your liver in one dose. When you drink a beer, the alcohol trickles in to your liver over time. The same is true of sugars. Carbs that are digested immediately will hit the liver in one dose. Carbs that are digested slowly over time will reach the liver in smaller amounts over a longer period. No matter if you have the shot or the beer, the strawberries or the pop tart, your liver doesn't function any faster or slower. What it's not using is stored as liver fat.
its the same amount of alcohol. And if I have nothing to drink over the next four hours it gets detoxed out of my body the same way a beer would....
If you're only having one shot and it takes 4 hrs, you need to see a doctor. It doesn't change the fact that the dose reaching your liver is more than it can process initially - alcohol, that's ~an ounce an hour. It's an analogy for the sugar issue, because your liver has the same issue when it's faced with more to process than it can. If you can't get over the drunkenness, look at a carburetor flooding an engine. It's bad for the engine, but once in a while, you deal with it and move on. If it keeps happening, it damages the engine.
The gas isn't magic gas that works differently than other gas, but the abundance of it is screwing things up.0 -
I've eliminated added sugar. It made it much easier for me to lose weight because the more sugar I ate, the more I craved. That made it really difficult for me to reduce calories consistently. I struggled a lot for about two weeks with cravings when I quit, but then it got easier and easier until the cravings disappeared entirely.
An added benefit is that I quickly discovered I would no longer get tired/sluggish/lethargic for no apparent reason after lunch. I have more energy in general now, and don't have big swings. Also, sugar is not good for the body...even if you are at a healthy weight. So there are other health reasons to eliminate it or make it only a rare thing.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...
I am not talking about only obesity. Over consumption of sugar has ill effects and has been proven in some studies where people only did consume exess amounts of sugar with out overall exces calories.
Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the paper's senior author, said:
"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation. But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking.
You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."
most of Lusting's stuff has been refuted and/or debunked..
here is Alan Aragon pretty much taking Lusting apart: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please least the ill effects that you are claiming sugar causes...
So Aragon recommends about 50g per day for an average adult, which is the same number mfp recommends for me on reduced calories.
His are really pretty close to the average recommendations, although he does say it's different for very active.0 -
Sugary drinks like sodas? Yes.
Candy? NEVERRRRRR0 -
About 10% of the population in the US has diabetes, so one in ten individuals indeed may feel sluggish after a large meal or after consuming a fair amount of sugar.0
-
You don't need to have diabetes to feel sluggish after consuming a fair amount of sugar. I did...and I know that I don't have diabetes. A lot of people respond that way...I suspect it is far higher than 10% of the population that reacts that way. The ill effects are admittedly worse for people with diabetes though.About 10% of the population in the US has diabetes, so one in ten individuals indeed may feel sluggish after a large meal or after consuming a fair amount of sugar.
0 -
About 10% of the population in the US has diabetes, so one in ten individuals indeed may feel sluggish after a large meal or after consuming a fair amount of sugar.
It's not limited to diabetics, but most people really don't have to quit sugar to avoid those things either. Being sluggish after Thanksgiving dinner seems common--not eating like it's Thanksgiving on a regular basis is a nice solution. Eating lots of refined carbs with nothing else, especially when you feel tired, good way to end up on an up and down cycle. Eat more rationally (have some protein and fat with your refined carbs and, ideally, maybe less refined carbs when possible), presto, no problem for most people, I'd bet.
I still eat sugar (including in fruit and dairy), and I never have those problems any more. I've also lost lots of weight, continue to have no skin problems, and don't have particular problems with cravings whether I eat sugar or not (as mentioned on another thread I'm mostly craving lamb these days, and that's because I've been eating fish as my only meat and am starting to think about what I might cook for Easter dinner--I also plan to make some pie, but somehow I'm still thinking mostly about the lamb, I guess sugar isn't so magically powerful as some claim, hmm).0 -
emiliabuchanan wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »emiliabuchanan wrote: »After watching a documentary about sugar I am really considering quitting altogether.
Has anyone else done this and what was your experience??
I haven't cut out all sugars, but I don't use refined sugar. I eat fruit and sometimes cook with honey when I'm having a craving (homemade ice cream made with heavy cream and honey is awesome). I just use LESS than what the recipe usually calls for. But in general, i avoid desserts and foods with added sugars. I try to eat foods with as little processing as possible.
What I've found:
I don't have to nap after work anymore
I have energy ALL day
I sleep better
I lost 30 lbs
My skin cleared up
Hope this helps - I say go for it.
And there's plenty of people who eat refined sugar and never had those problems to begin with. So what does that mean?
It means some people's bodies tolerate sugar better than others.
Almost always in these threads the people who say they had issues with sugar were eating excessive amounts.If she's having issues with eating sugar and wants to cut it out of her diet, I don't see why people are arguing with her. It worked for me.
She didn't say she was having issues. She watched some documentary that was intended to convince people that sugar is to blame for all the problems of the world and killing everyone.
0 -
I don't have problems with sugar either any more. I also got my worst sugar highs from certain starchy carbohydrates....not sugar. And yes, much worse if I didn't cut it with protein, sauce, vegetables, something.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »About 10% of the population in the US has diabetes, so one in ten individuals indeed may feel sluggish after a large meal or after consuming a fair amount of sugar.
It's not limited to diabetics, but most people really don't have to quit sugar to avoid those things either. Being sluggish after Thanksgiving dinner seems common--not eating like it's Thanksgiving on a regular basis is a nice solution. Eating lots of refined carbs with nothing else, especially when you feel tired, good way to end up on an up and down cycle. Eat more rationally (have some protein and fat with your refined carbs and, ideally, maybe less refined carbs when possible), presto, no problem for most people, I'd bet.
I still eat sugar (including in fruit and dairy), and I never have those problems any more. I've also lost lots of weight, continue to have no skin problems, and don't have particular problems with cravings whether I eat sugar or not (as mentioned on another thread I'm mostly craving lamb these days, and that's because I've been eating fish as my only meat and am starting to think about what I might cook for Easter dinner--I also plan to make some pie, but somehow I'm still thinking mostly about the lamb, I guess sugar isn't so magically powerful as some claim, hmm).
I also used to be one who had the sluggishness after eating. I did eat a lot of carbs and sugar. I quit them for a very long time.
I have no cravings now when I eat sugar. None. No sluggishness either. That's because I consume it in a small portion, keeping it relative to my overall calorie consumption. I have a planned treat of a chocolate covered coconut macaroon and some yogurt, almonds, and raspberries left to eat today. I'm thinking about the yogurt/raspberries more right now.
I will add my personal anecdata to the over-consumption idea. I once ate a ridiculous amount of the fat drained from some roasted chickens. I felt worse from that than I EVER felt from any sugar crash. I think over-consuming anything to the point that it's out of balance with the rest of your intake will tax your system to the point that it will cause sluggishness.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I think over-consuming anything to the point that it's out of balance with the rest of your intake will tax your system to the point that it will cause sluggishness.
This is my experience too.0 -
The WHO makes no such claim. They recommend reduced free sugar to prevent obesity (which in turn is a health issue) and improve dental health. That's it.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I suspect this is right, and would add: they probably feel it would improve overall health and reduce mortality as well.
Im not suggesting the report said that. But thanks for doing so much research. Knowledge is really the key.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?
No, I said no such thing, but thanks for playing psychic. When you take a shot, the alcohol arrives at your liver in one dose. When you drink a beer, the alcohol trickles in to your liver over time. The same is true of sugars. Carbs that are digested immediately will hit the liver in one dose. Carbs that are digested slowly over time will reach the liver in smaller amounts over a longer period. No matter if you have the shot or the beer, the strawberries or the pop tart, your liver doesn't function any faster or slower. What it's not using is stored as liver fat.
It's his speciality.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I think over-consuming anything to the point that it's out of balance with the rest of your intake will tax your system to the point that it will cause sluggishness.
This is my experience too.
Yup. Agreed. And I would add there's a tendency to over do on some things but not on others.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I think over-consuming anything to the point that it's out of balance with the rest of your intake will tax your system to the point that it will cause sluggishness.
This is my experience too.
Yup. Agreed. And I would add there's a tendency to over do on some things but not on others.
But what those things are seems to differ person to person. Lots of people here seem inclined to overdo on pasta, but I'm way more likely to overdo on some rack of lamb. I mean, not anymore, normally, since I monitor portions, but I easily could!
(I seem to be posting about meat today.)0 -
I still have an issue with even reasonable amounts of carbs/sugar but it's nice to know that that might change some time in the future. I would love to be able to have fruit with breakfast and beans with dinner or something crazy like that!
Still, I do enjoy my food (it seems more indulgent than restrictive most days) and having a normal appetite and energy levels are worth it. But I'll definitely keep this in mind and test my limits periodically to see if whatever issues I have with carbs corrects itself.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?
No, I said no such thing, but thanks for playing psychic. When you take a shot, the alcohol arrives at your liver in one dose. When you drink a beer, the alcohol trickles in to your liver over time. The same is true of sugars. Carbs that are digested immediately will hit the liver in one dose. Carbs that are digested slowly over time will reach the liver in smaller amounts over a longer period. No matter if you have the shot or the beer, the strawberries or the pop tart, your liver doesn't function any faster or slower. What it's not using is stored as liver fat.
its the same amount of alcohol. And if I have nothing to drink over the next four hours it gets detoxed out of my body the same way a beer would....
No, the other dude is right - it's not just a question of amount, it's a question of rate. Your body *will* metabolize differently depending on whether you're sipping a beer or shooting tequila.
If you're running a proper deficit, it will all eventually work out approximately equivalent, but your body will take different paths to get there.
0 -
mmm lamb. agreed, but that said, not many will over do on broccoli.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I think over-consuming anything to the point that it's out of balance with the rest of your intake will tax your system to the point that it will cause sluggishness.
This is my experience too.
Yup. Agreed. And I would add there's a tendency to over do on some things but not on others.
But what those things are seems to differ person to person. Lots of people here seem inclined to overdo on pasta, but I'm way more likely to overdo on some rack of lamb. I mean, not anymore, normally, since I monitor portions, but I easily could!
(I seem to be posting about meat today.)
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
- 8.5K 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