Questions about sugar
Replies
-
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
Look, I don't know if you realize, but when you lose fat from your face you're going to look older. If your skin doesn't have sufficient elasticity to snap back (more likely when you lose a lot of weight vs a little), you're going to look even older than you would have otherwise, because your skin will sag more. You will have more wrinkles.
There is a reason why cosmetic surgeons use fillers, implants, and, yes, fat transplants to make people look younger.
You can't take your observations and make any legitimate conclusions about the effects of sugar intake on aging.
ETA: Should have said, lose enough fat from your face. Obviously up to a point your face just looks thinner, not older ...0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
And...go
what little credibility you had..... gone.
0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »Sciency. Good word. No it doesn't go through you, but unless you just ran a marathon and your muscles are empty of glycogen it will store as fat. Don't worry. I won't be pulling that snickers away from you. I will undoubtedly eat one now and then. I just won't try to convince myself that I am doing something good for my body. I will enjoy it like the treat that it is.
I do have a decent grasp of the way the human body works. I don't have a degree in nutrition but give me the contact information of a licensed nutritionist that would recommend eating snickers over fruit and I will send you a case of snickers as my sincere apology for soundy sciency
Please, save the I have a degree in this or that. Plenty of people come in here trying to pull that card and get the rug pulled out right from under them when they can't keep up.
Explain to me why your muscles would have to be completely empty in order for the glycogen to store that resulted from the snickers? We can store between 400 and 500 grams of glycogen in our muscle but you're saying it has to be fully depleted for glycogen to store from it? So if you take a sweet potato and it results in glycogen to be stored, will it store as fat unless your stores are depleted? Or does your body decide that since it came from a sweet potato that it can be stored in the muscle?
When your body stores body fat as a result of insulin spikes where do you think your body pulls some of the energy it needs to get through its daily activities? Don't we burn and store fat all day? Following your logic would it be safe to assume that you believe that even in a caloric deficit we can get fatter if we have high sugar intakes?
I said I DON'T have a degree in nutrition. Not that I do. I haven't read all the science out there on nutrition ut I have read alot. Obviously, if your muscles glycogen storage is full then it is full regardless of the source, but there is a much lower glycogen conversation in sweet potato s snickers and the sweet potato gets converted slower.
The conversation isn't much lower. You're pulling that out of thin air.
It takes approximately 7g pet lb of lbm in order to go from depletion to full glycogen stores. I would love to see you find people that fit the category of walking around with maxed out glycogen stores while in deficit. You ignored most of the questions I asked. Great job.HeatherZousel wrote: »Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
And...go
Your logic and knowledge is flawed. Your debating of science is boring. You might want us to flame you but the truth is as its said above, you're boring. It's to debate against people that not only are not on the same playing field, they're not even in the same sport. Try again in a few years.
You amuse me. Read something outside you comfort zone.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My old man IIFYM face
So sad now...
Just kidding...I look fantastic for nearly 40...0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »Calories in calories out is a flawed theory that I don't necessarily subsribe to. Ready? Set? Flame! I've done plenty of research and I am sure there are lots of folks here that will come out now and say "well I lost by burning more than I ate," I am sure you did. There are lots of people it doesn't work for.
And...go
Can they create energy from nothing? If so, that makes them a perpetual energy machine and the government would like to study them to create a renewable energy resource.
Can they make energy disappear? If so that means they are a black hole0 -
- I have great skin. Everyone says so.
- I don't care for Snickers. Cheap chocolate.
- About 10% of the American populace has diabetes, about a quarter of that undiagnosed.
- I am a type 2 diabetic in remission. I watch sugar of course. I watch it but don't try and get rid of all of it. Some carbs like rice hits me worse than sugar.
- My body does not distinguish between the "all natural" sugar from honey and HFCS. It's all the same as far as my body is concerned.
0 -
A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
You say this study and that study but I don't see a link to said studies.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!0 -
Unless you have been in a calorie deficit for too long and your metabolism has slowed down.... Then no matter how 'natural' the sugar is, combine that with the stress induced cortisol in your system from being in starvation mode for so long and your body may just start storing that fruit as fat... But that's pretty rare
0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
There are a lot of junk studies. Providing links to studies you're citing would be helpful.
0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
It's polite to cite your sources: http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
djmarieclaire wrote: »Unless you have been in a calorie deficit for too long and your metabolism has slowed down.... Then no matter how 'natural' the sugar is, combine that with the stress induced cortisol in your system from being in starvation mode for so long and your body may just start storing that fruit as fat... But that's pretty rare
MFP bingo, all in one post.
0 -
Oh, I was so stunned earlier, I forgot to post this...
I'll be 53 this year. I don't have any wrinkles.
I'm sure that when I get down to goal that I'll look older. Fat fills out your face.
I still won't have any wrinkles, though.
Mr. Hornsby up there is looking terribly old, isn't he. What a shame. Tsk tsk. All that sugar has made him look at least 28.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
Www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3641567
Www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060619133024.htm0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
I see the ridiculousness has reached critical mass …
It seems to me in my small sample size observations that ones demonizing sugar and avoiding it are the ones that are having the most problems losing, and keeping weight off.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
FYI. I have a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. I am quite comfortable doing research. Perhaps you could attempt to lower the degree of condescension. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. If you look to previous posts I simply said the theory is flawed. The human body is very complex and many issues impact the way we burn fuel0 -
I didn't think a rounded 25% of my daily calories via fat was "so low."jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is low on workout days. It's 58g on non-workout days.jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you are wrong here. As luck would have it, this is part of my planned menu for tomorrow.HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
The bottom numbers are my macro goals for the day. The top numbers are what I (will have) logged for the day. Tell me the problem with the Snickers here.
No problem with the Snickers...
...but your fat target seems deleteriously low.
Edited to add: On a weekly basis, I target 24.37% of my calories being from fat. Is that deleteriously low, in your view?
Honestly, it does still sound a little low, but that's admittedly based more on "feel" and "average active adult male" assumptions than on any actual calculations. I didn't actually do any math on these new numbers. (Okay, strike that last statement. I just did some math. Assuming 185 pounds, that's <0.3g/pound, which is "low" fat consumption.)
Your 35g fat limit (when I assumed that was daily) set off my "definitely too low" alarms for someone with a ~2k daily limit...because <0.2g/pound is low enough that I would expect it to negatively impact proper hormone regulation/production.
I'm curious, though, what's your reasoning for keeping fat so low?
Basically, one gram of protein per pound of body weight. That might be a bit on the high side given my body fat percentage, but I don't think it's outrageously so.
Then, 25% of calories from fat. Then, the rest from carbs.
I (try to) eat a consistent amount of protein every day. On lifting days, I eat more calories than other days and skew my weekly allotment of carbs to those days, and eat less fat. On non-lifting days, I eat fewer calories and skew toward fat and away from carbs.
I'm basically on the last bit of losing 110-120 pounds and am starting slowly to bump up my calories to find maintenance before I eventually start to bulk. As I add more calories, they'll go almost exclusively to fat and carbs up to maintenance. The bulking calories above maintenance (150 a day or so) will also be almost all fat and carbs since one gram of protein per pound of body weight will take a pretty small slice out of the additional bulking calories.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more belly fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
Thanks much!0 -
My old man IIFYM face So sad now...
Just kidding...I look fantastic for nearly 40...
Maybe s/he saw my picture (will be 45 this year)? Not that I'm a vocal proponent of IIFYM, but who knows?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
HeatherZousel wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »A University of Florida study found that people who consume more antioxidants maintain lower BMIs, smaller waistlines, and lower body-fat percentages than those with lower intakes, even though both groups consumed about the same number of daily calories–a strong indication that the nutrients calories are bundled with play a key role in metabolism. Other research has uncovered similar effects. Wake Forest University researchers found that even at the same calorie and fat levels, monkeys fed foods high in trans fat gained four times more weight and 30% more bellmoo yy fat compared to animals who munched on meals made with natural plant-based fat. More evidence that eating 500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat
smart weight-control strategy.
Can you link to the paper please?
Thanks!
She didn't post the link but she mentioned it in passing. I posted the link above and was able to locate the study, after digging for it, it took some digging which is doubtful she did, but here it is. I'm still looking at it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract
FYI. I have a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. I am quite comfortable doing research. Perhaps you could attempt to lower the degree of condescension. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. If you look to previous posts I simply said the theory is flawed. The human body is very complex and many issues impact the way we burn fuel
Again with the believing that stating what your completion of education mean anything at all. You have simply failed to answer general science questions, not even theories, straight science but you think that somehow my issue is that I can think outside the box and read something I don't agree with. That's cute. You have stated beliefs, have provided nothing to back up your silly claims and then the things you have said have been so easily picked apart that it's just really boring. So your level of education is actually something I would keep on the back burner because it actually makes you look worse as you spout nonsense.
Your level of aggression on this topic is interesting. I have responded with some of the sources of my information, though granted, a tiny fraction. You, on the other hand, have just spouted your opinion. You are a fabulous example of why I don't get my fitness and nutrition information from these message boards. Enjoy the 202 pages. The gist is that nutritionally dense foods cause less weight gain that nutritionally devoid food when controlling for calorie content.0 -
Hrm. I can only read the abstract at home. But after figuring out what a photochemical is the study seems to show a correlation between normal weight and the consumption of vegetables. This doesn't seem to support the claim that a restriction of calories will not lead to weightloss, rather it shows a difference between the diets of healthy and overweight people.
To show a calorie deficit doesn't result in weightloss the experiment would have to be overweight people eating diets rich in photochemicals. One group eating at maintenance and one group at a deficit. If they both loose equal amounts of weight then it's not the restriction.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions