Sugar
Replies
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
You're not looking at the overall picture and instead you are just looking at small sections of how the body works. You can not do that to explain the whole process...Once you add protein or fat to the mix the GI scale is no longer valid.
Which is why I put PB on my bread. Presto, bango, nice sustained energy burn with no spike.
Or a nice piece of hard cheese with the apple.0 -
I enjoy sucralose.
Not only is it very low calorie, but it tastes great and does not cause tooth decay.0 -
Exercise also tend to make people more insulin sensitive, especially immediately after, and often means you benefit from quick energy (precisely what people who find it spikes blood sugar and makes them hungry are trying to avoid at other times).
So it all depends on context, once again. ;-)
I'm trying to see how quick carbs help with recovery post workouts (probably no big effect, but it's always motivating to try something new and see what happens) and it's actually been tough to get my head around this as for so long I'd mostly always prefer the slower carbs or mix them with fat. So far they at least don't seem to be making me hungrier, although I am not convinced there's any major benefit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WOW great article.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions