Sugars or calories
rsm193
Posts: 23 Member
IN my opinion I feel like sugars are worse thancalories.... Anyone else feel this way and why?
0
Replies
-
No... sugars contain calories. You can count sugars all you want, but it's the total calories that matter, not the total sugars. I could eat my entire calorie goal in sugar and still lose weight... I'd be unhealthy as heck, hungry all the time,and toothless, but still lose weight.0
-
No, I don't feel that way, because I listen to science. Calories are the only thing that matters for weight loss. The rest is nutrition.0
-
No, I don't feel that way.
*settles comfortably in chair, puts on concerned face*
But why do YOU feel that way?0 -
Sugars are worse than calories? That doesn't even make sense. Calories are in everything. Sugar is the end result of carbs. Tomatoes are carbs. Why do you hate tomatoes?
Start making sense please.0 -
Mmmmm sugar!! Calorie deficit for weight loss, sugar for happiness.0
-
I don't understand the sentence" sugars are worse than calories "
Do you mean sugar is the worst form of calories?
If that is what you meant, I disagree. There's no bad or good calories . some may have better nutritional value but eating sugar along with a well balanced diet won't hurt ( unless you happen to have a medical condition ) I eat a well balanced diet and include a serving of ice cream daily. It has not hurt my progress any. Do you feel like one would receive extra "credit " for eating no sugar (sans medical conditions) and eating "clean " all the time ? I don't. I have no issue with including a treat in moderation.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »No... sugars contain calories. You can count sugars all you want, but it's the total calories that matter, not the total sugars. I could eat my entire calorie goal in sugar and still lose weight... I'd be unhealthy as heck, hungry all the time,and toothless, but still lose weight.
This is a great answer !!! +10 -
The fact that you say that sugars are "worse than" calories implies that you think calories are bad.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Your body needs calories to....what's the word I'm looking for....FUNCTION.
So....why are calories bad again?0 -
AmazinglySimpleton wrote: »Sugars are worse than calories? That doesn't even make sense. Calories are in everything. Sugar is the end result of carbs. Tomatoes are carbs. Why do you hate tomatoes?
Start making sense please.
Tomatoes make my mouth happy!0 -
I don't feel calories are bad. I think too many of them are a problem.
I am indifferent about sugar. I definitely love its taste, but know it packs a bit of a whallop calorie-wise. Not a big fan of the sugar rush either, and it makes my kids crazy!
I don't like rap music though while we are comparing apples to oranges. I definitely think it is worse than horses.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »No... sugars contain calories. You can count sugars all you want, but it's the total calories that matter, not the total sugars. I could eat my entire calorie goal in sugar and still lose weight... I'd be unhealthy as heck, hungry all the time,and toothless, but still lose weight.
+1
0 -
"Worse" in what way? For weight loss, it's about calories, although cutting back on very sweet foods can often help with cutting back on calories, since very sugary foods (like very fatty foods) are often energy dense, which tends to provide low satiety.
For overall health? I guess that depends on where your body is at and what your health goals are.0 -
Watch sugars if you are concerned about how your body breaks down the molecules you put into your body and long term affects on organs.
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/0 -
sillyscooby03 wrote: »Watch sugars if you are concerned about how your body breaks down the molecules you put into your body and long term affects on organs.
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Your body breaks down almost all carbohydrates into glucose. Glucose is the easiest form of energy for your cells to use.
Thermic effect of food is highly overstated in almost all "why to low carb" discussions. It's really not enough to mean that you can eat that many more calories by eating foods that are "harder to digest."
I won't go over every one of the 6 points.
Sugar is yummy. Fruit is delish - and guess what, it's full of fructose! Now, I'm not suggesting eating your whole day's calorie allowance in sugar (who really, honestly suggests that, anyway?). But there is nothing wrong with having sugar as part of your diet.
[Okay, back to the hilarity now
] 0 -
That statement doesn't even make sense.0
-
Thermic effect of food is highly overstated in almost all "why to low carb" discussions. It's really not enough to mean that you can eat that many more calories by eating foods that are "harder to digest."
It also neglects indirect effects. Yes, protein is less efficient to directly metabolize, so some of the energy of the protein produces heat instead of usable energy (ATP). But that indirectly means your body can reduce other processes that produce heat, like thermogenesis in brown fat tissue, which also consumes calories to produce heat.
Unless you are actually losing more heat to the environment (e.g. by having a higher body temperature) you're just swapping calories being transformed into heat in one metabolic process for calories transformed into heat by another metabolic process.0 -
All, please do me a favor and stay on topic.
Lemon0 -
As someone with insulin resistance, sugars cause me WAY more problems than (excessive) calories. Actually, I find it difficult to eat excessive calories when I am eating no sugars, so avoiding sugars helps me stay in my calorie limit.
Sugar has a negative impact on my health. It tastes great, I would indulge if it didn't hurt my health, but it does so no sugar for me. To be honest, avoiding sugars is getting easier and easier. It's not the devil, just an unhealthy irritant.0 -
As someone with insulin resistance, sugars cause me WAY more problems than (excessive) calories. Actually, I find it difficult to eat excessive calories when I am eating no sugars, so avoiding sugars helps me stay in my calorie limit.
Sugar has a negative impact on my health. It tastes great, I would indulge if it didn't hurt my health, but it does so no sugar for me. To be honest, avoiding sugars is getting easier and easier. It's not the devil, just an unhealthy irritant.
I'm sure you mean it's an unhealthy irritant for you?
Because sugar in general is not unhealthy and it's not an irritant, it's just.....sugar. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yes, for me, and others, it's just an annoyance. i could eat many more foods if companies would quit adding sugar to so much stuff. Irritating.0
-
In a nut shell,should you not worry about going over your sugar limit sometimes because it does not hinder your weight loss ?
0 -
In a nut shell,should you not worry about going over your sugar limit sometimes because it does not hinder your weight loss ?
^Yes. Caloric deficit is the only thing that matters for weight loss (simplified). Obviously you don't wanna be 300g over your sugar limit every day, but if you go over every so often, you'll still lose weight provided you're in an overall caloric deficit.
Sugar is a carb. It is calories. It's calories the same way bacon is calories. Is bacon worse than calories? (Of course not. Bacon isn't worse than anything.) The point is, you can track your sugar intake, or drop it to shockingly low levels for the rest of your life, and still gain weight for the rest of your life. Or, you can choose, as an individual, to limit your sugar intake ALONGSIDE your caloric intake, and provided you're in a caloric deficit, sugar-be-darned you'll lose weight.0 -
Math version:
100 calories worth of pure sugar plus 2900 calories worth of other food = weight GAIN
0 calories worth of pure sugar plus 3000 calories worth of other food = weight GAIN
1000 calories worth of pure sugar plus 200 calories worth of other food = weight LOSS, albeit unpleasantly restrictive and super unhealthy weight loss.
CICO is king.0 -
I have to try to keep my blood glucose lower, so added sugar/sweets are an enormous PITA, yeah. It's incredibly yummy, which just adds to that whole PITA thing
I have both iced brownies and mini cupcakes in the house for someone else right now. Aaaack.
If it were just a matter of a lb or two over time, I'd scarf some of those suckers up right now, no doubt. Of course, for me, it was more like 30 lbs over time, so cutting back for weight reasons wouldn't have steered me wrong, either (and didn't). Meh, kill two birds
0 -
-
I know what you mean my dear, sugar is bad for health reasons such as blood sugar levels etc. Its best to avoid when possible0
-
BecomingBane wrote: »No... sugars contain calories. You can count sugars all you want, but it's the total calories that matter, not the total sugars. I could eat my entire calorie goal in sugar and still lose weight... I'd be unhealthy as heck, hungry all the time,and toothless, but still lose weight.
In a nutshell....
Psst, calories are not 'bad;' when you stop needing them you're dead!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
- 430 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