Sugar
Replies
-
Well done on both counts.Back to the OP: if you are looking for something 'better' than sugar, there are too many opinions on the matter and they are just that. Opinions.
If you are looking for an alternative to sugar, and would like my opinion: have you tried stevia? I've used to liquid form previously. If you are looking for another option, try limiting how much real sugar you use.
Agree Stevia works well. I prefer KAL brand which is sometime hard to find but I ordered from Amazon. It seems to be less bitter than other brands.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's all about calories. If real sugar is worth the calories to you, then eat real sugar. If you'd rather not use your calories on added sugar, then the substitutes are fine.
Only you can decide what's better for you.
There seem to be much information out there (like link above) that say that higher GI foods, like sugar, are used instantly for energy instead of using fat that's been stored. So, I think what they are saying is that eating lower GI foods enable you to burn stored fat more. An area I find quite confusing.
I'm struggling to understand how, if you're eating at a deficit, it matters whether what you're eating is used instantly or not.
If you eat 100 calories of sugar and it is used instantly, how does that result in more weight loss than eating 100 calories of, say, almonds that are used later in the day? In both instances, the food is used for energy. And if you are eating at a deficit, then the stored energy in your body will be used as well.
Yeah its a puzzle. Here is another on that quotes scientific research
http://www.oprah.com/health/Lose-Weight-with-a-Low-Glycemic-Diet
I don't know if it is a puzzle -- it sounds more like a weight loss red herring.
You may well be right. As usual there are studies and claims in both directions. The UK government have recently come out and said fat up isn't the enemy we thought it was, sugar is. Who knows.0 -
-
To the OP, my question is this to you: Are you cutting real sugar out of your diet for a specific reason like health issues or are you wanting to eat less of it for another reason.
Just curious..
I started omitting part of the sugar from my diet by baking (some stuff) at home by using Stevia Baking Blend, Stevia Brown Sugar. I use truvia for coffee and tea. For starters I hate drinking my calories and my need at night for a small treat without the calories and carbs does come with specifics in baking.
Everyone is different and it is a personal choice how you want to moderate any type of "real" sugar or substitute you use. Everything has its side effects whether it is partial sugar substitutes, sugar free or the real stuff!.
If you want real sugar just eat smaller portions and it does make food "yummier"...
0 -
0 -
Here's a scholarly article about whey absorption and insulin. In this article, the insulin stimulation is regarded as a good thing.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/69.full
Thanks, that's really interesting. I never expected that of whey.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »I don't think so. It was more the stuff on fat storage
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/spotlight-low-gi
This is often misunderstood. The deal with high GI foods (and what the article is saying) is that lots of people feel less satisfied after eating them or tend to get hungry again quickly, especially (but not only) if they are insulin resistant. But whether or not a meal is high GI depends on the mix of foods. Foods with fiber (like fruit) or lots of fat (like many sweets) or something like potatoes eaten with meat won't have the GI that you see which is based on eating particular items in isolation.
But more important, they are predicting how you will react to the foods. What's important is how you actually do. (I find eating many refined carbs alone is not all that satiating, so I don't.)
The thing about fat storage, though, is a misunderstanding--insulin when operating correctly basically is a mechanism for getting glycogen where it needs to go, including to the muscles. One result of this process, when you have more than you need immediately for energy, will be to convert it to fat and store it (super oversimplified), but that doesn't mean you gain fat. At the same time you will be burning fat if eating at a deficit. So it's not like you end up with more fat you otherwise would have or--of course--that you avoid gaining fat when eating more than you use so long as you eat low GI foods. That really makes no difference. What matters is simply if it is harder for you to eat the right amount of food because you end up feeling hungry.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's all about calories. If real sugar is worth the calories to you, then eat real sugar. If you'd rather not use your calories on added sugar, then the substitutes are fine.
Only you can decide what's better for you.
There seem to be much information out there (like link above) that say that higher GI foods, like sugar, are used instantly for energy instead of using fat that's been stored. So, I think what they are saying is that eating lower GI foods enable you to burn stored fat more. An area I find quite confusing.
I'm struggling to understand how, if you're eating at a deficit, it matters whether what you're eating is used instantly or not.
If you eat 100 calories of sugar and it is used instantly, how does that result in more weight loss than eating 100 calories of, say, almonds that are used later in the day? In both instances, the food is used for energy. And if you are eating at a deficit, then the stored energy in your body will be used as well.
Yeah its a puzzle. Here is another on that quotes scientific research
http://www.oprah.com/health/Lose-Weight-with-a-Low-Glycemic-Diet
This is not saying that you gain despite eating at a deficit. It presents a hypothesis that some people who are insulin resistant get hungrier after eating high GI meals and then have a much harder time dieting. The don't lose because they eat more.0 -
To the OP, my question is this to you: Are you cutting real sugar out of your diet for a specific reason like health issues or are you wanting to eat less of it for another reason.
Just curious..
I started omitting part of the sugar from my diet by baking (some stuff) at home by using Stevia Baking Blend, Stevia Brown Sugar. I use truvia for coffee and tea. For starters I hate drinking my calories and my need at night for a small treat without the calories and carbs does come with specifics in baking.
Everyone is different and it is a personal choice how you want to moderate any type of "real" sugar or substitute you use. Everything has its side effects whether it is partial sugar substitutes, sugar free or the real stuff!.
If you want real sugar just eat smaller portions and it does make food "yummier"...
A few reasons I guess. The less calories in things like sugar the more overall food I get to eat! I understand that sugar is not particularly good for your health, and I'm trying to be healthier. Lastly, there is enough conflicting information on the fat storage issue to not completely ignore it. It's no big deal for me to swap it out for Stevia or Xylatol etc, so nothing lost.0 -
If you like high volume in your meals, also watch the fats. They are even more calorie dense than sugar.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's all about calories. If real sugar is worth the calories to you, then eat real sugar. If you'd rather not use your calories on added sugar, then the substitutes are fine.
Only you can decide what's better for you.
There seem to be much information out there (like link above) that say that higher GI foods, like sugar, are used instantly for energy instead of using fat that's been stored. So, I think what they are saying is that eating lower GI foods enable you to burn stored fat more. An area I find quite confusing.
I'm struggling to understand how, if you're eating at a deficit, it matters whether what you're eating is used instantly or not.
If you eat 100 calories of sugar and it is used instantly, how does that result in more weight loss than eating 100 calories of, say, almonds that are used later in the day? In both instances, the food is used for energy. And if you are eating at a deficit, then the stored energy in your body will be used as well.
Yeah its a puzzle. Here is another on that quotes scientific research
http://www.oprah.com/health/Lose-Weight-with-a-Low-Glycemic-Diet
This is not saying that you gain despite eating at a deficit. It presents a hypothesis that some people who are insulin resistant get hungrier after eating high GI meals and then have a much harder time dieting. The don't lose because they eat more.
I think that's certainly true. Unless you eat a whole tub of ice cream lol0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »I don't think so. It was more the stuff on fat storage
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/spotlight-low-gi
This is often misunderstood. The deal with high GI foods (and what the article is saying) is that lots of people feel less satisfied after eating them or tend to get hungry again quickly, especially (but not only) if they are insulin resistant. But whether or not a meal is high GI depends on the mix of foods. Foods with fiber (like fruit) or lots of fat (like many sweets) or something like potatoes eaten with meat won't have the GI that you see which is based on eating particular items in isolation.
But more important, they are predicting how you will react to the foods. What's important is how you actually do. (I find eating many refined carbs alone is not all that satiating, so I don't.)
The thing about fat storage, though, is a misunderstanding--insulin when operating correctly basically is a mechanism for getting glycogen where it needs to go, including to the muscles. One result of this process, when you have more than you need immediately for energy, will be to convert it to fat and store it (super oversimplified), but that doesn't mean you gain fat. At the same time you will be burning fat if eating at a deficit. So it's not like you end up with more fat you otherwise would have or--of course--that you avoid gaining fat when eating more than you use so long as you eat low GI foods. That really makes no difference. What matters is simply if it is harder for you to eat the right amount of food because you end up feeling hungry.
That makes sense.0 -
0
-
All food is lovely and contributes to our health. Sugar is a life-saver for marathon runners and diabetics going in to shock. There's a reason there are natural sugars in mother's milk.0
-
slowbutsure2 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
If only there wasn't the added complication of health.
It's highly unlikely that a single food is going to make you unhealthy.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
If only there wasn't the added complication of health.
It's highly unlikely that a single food is going to make you unhealthy.
Depends how much you eat of it I guess.0 -
All food is lovely and contributes to our health. Sugar is a life-saver for marathon runners and diabetics going in to shock. There's a reason there are natural sugars in mother's milk.
Yeah but I suspect not all sugars are created equal. I'm guessing fruit in sugar is better than white processed cane sugar. Nothing would surprise me though.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
If only there wasn't the added complication of health.
It's highly unlikely that a single food is going to make you unhealthy.
Depends how much you eat of it I guess.
Sure, but even "healthy" foods have that problem. There was a thread earlier today about a woman made ill by eating too much bok choy, a food that is certainly good for you.
0 -
Anyway, to answer the original question xylitol bothers some people's insides, but if you don't have that issue (I don't seem to) and like the way it tastes well enough, it should be fine. Just don't let a dog eat it.0
-
slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yeah but I suspect not all sugars are created equal. I'm guessing fruit in sugar is better than white processed cane sugar. Nothing would surprise me though.
http://www.sugar-and-sweetener-guide.com/
Hoo boy. Even sugar isn't sugar. We use the word "sugar" for "something" sweet and it includes all the chemical compounds that end in -ose. Like sucrose, glucose, fructose, and lactose.
Processed cane sugar comes from the sugar cane, so it is naturally sourced. The only difference between the two is it will take you a lot longer to chew your way through the natural cane for the sweetness. There's fiber and some vitamins and minerals. But the chemical makeup is identical.
My girlfriend who runs half marathons carries a few gummy bears with her for her run. They provide the immediate energy she needs. Believe me, her body doesn't care if it were a gummy bear or a honey tube. You will find that a good portion of the athletes on this site are much less concerned about the "naturalness" of the source, as getting the nutrition they need.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions