We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Are All Calorie Sources the Same?
Replies
-
HarperWinterberry wrote: »
You can't find how sugar is metabolized anywhere on the internet?
There's lots of info available about how sugar is metabolized. It just doesn't match your claims.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yep, messed up some Macros with Micros. Good catch
Sugar isn't a micro either. It's a carb.0 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »
Look, it's not a "claim" -- you can't debate how sugar is metabolized. That's just ridiculous.
With all due respect, apparently you can. Science doesn't agree with your claims.6 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »
Look, it's not a "claim" -- you can't debate how sugar is metabolized. That's just ridiculous.
That's probably the most accurate thing you've said in this thread. Unfortunately, it doesn't bend in your favour.12 -
You know a thread went to hell when you want to go back on facebook and argue about a gorilla.12
-
RichardD83 wrote: »
If there is too much sugar in your blood stream doesn't insulin convert it to fat? Isn't this the based for diabetes?
Too much sugar in your bloodstream isn't the basis for diabetes. There are two types of diabetes, but both of them actually result in the body not properly utilizing/manufacturing insulin to regulate blood sugar. But in neither of them does it actually cause fat. Sugar can be a problem for a diabetic, but it doesn't cause diabetes. T1 diabetes isn't caused by any behavior, whereas T2 diabetes can occur with no real causation, but the most common reason for it is obesity, but certainly not the only reason. One thing the diabetes association doesn't list as a cause of diabetes is sugar.3 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »You can lead a horse to water, I guess... but you can't make him drink.
If you went to the right university, and studied the right courses, you should already know that 1 molecule of sugar needs 54 molecules of magnesium to process it.
If you do the research, you will find the right answer. It's not up for debate. It's science.
the research you've posted to support your claims?
oh wait7 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »
Look, it's not a "claim" -- you can't debate how sugar is metabolized. That's just ridiculous.
So when you claimed that a person would die faster on sugar and water than on water alone, that wasn't you?9 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »Well, it's been great fun, guys. I'm off on holiday now.
I know you'll all miss me greatly and think of me whenever you eat added sugar.
Please, take the time to do your own research. You'll be glad you did. xx
Finally people will get to ask questions without their threads being hijacked. I hope you don't drink too much added water on your holiday, because it would certainly kill you quicker than any sugar would.7 -
I love sweets and I include desserts in my calories every day. Sticking to my calorie allotment I lose weight easily. If you're not losing weight you might want to have your thyroid checked.0
-
It is true that all calories are the same, but you must take into consideration the macros. If you hit 2.000 calories with 200+ Grams of fat or sugar, that means that you are not eating healthy at all. My fitness Pal is a great app that will DO help you losing body fat or weight (whatever you wanna call it, but have in mind that losing body fat, and weight are two very different things,) but you still have to eat a little bit clean. You can either have 2.000 calories by eating light/low fat/low sugar/or whatever it is on the market Ice cream, burgers, and fries, or hit those 2.000 calories with whole foods like oatmeal, white eggs, peanut butter, fruits, vegetables, cooked meats, etc that will help you to lose weight. It's just a matter of how bad you want things. You either want to lose weight, or eat that burger with fries, and have ice cream or donuts latter on.
What has been helping me to reach my goal is eating 500 calories below of what MFP told me to eat every day, and of course, watching my fats, sugars, protein, and sodium intake. If I go over my limits in any of these 4 Macros I call it a cheat day, and if at the end of the week (which is the day I track my progress) I haven't lose any body fat, I know for damn sure that it was my fault (Even though not all days were cheat days) and need to change the way I eat.
Hope this help you. Keep grinding!
There is no situation in a person without medical conditions who needs to lose weight, where weight loss is not fat loss.
I have ice cream, fries, burgers, pizza and whatever the hell I want on a regular basis in moderation and within my calories and I lost and lose just fine, so that's wrong statement #2
And false statement #3 is thinking the change within one week is saying anything at all. You're probably crash dieting if the actual loss every week is higher than possible fluctuations that can happen from day to day.1 -
Not all weightloss is the same.
I do not care what anyone on here says about calorie defict. 182 pounds at 20% bodyfat vs 182 at 12% bodyfat is a very big difference. Take it from someone who had just over 18% bodyfat and lost 100 pounds. I was a smaller fat person.
Macros matter!
0 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »
Not all weightloss is the same.
I do not care what anyone on here says about calorie defict. 182 pounds at 20% bodyfat vs 182 at 12% bodyfat is a very big difference. Take it from someone who had just over 18% bodyfat and lost 100 pounds. I was a smaller fat person.
Macros matter!
That's not what the OP is asking. Of course the quality of food is important. He is asking if he would gain weight on a deficit if he ate sugar, which he wouldn't. To reiterate: all calories are the same, but not all foods have the same nutritional density.
When choosing foods it's important to look at the overall nutrition not a single food out of context. No doubt a kitkat is not as nutritionally dense as sauteed vegetables, but today I had meat and mushroom crepes with sour cream for breakfast and salmon with a large plate of sauteed vegetables for lunch then had a 2-finger kitkat for a snack. This is still a balanced day in retrospect, even though it had a food many people would not consider optimal. Now if I ate nothing but kitkat (or nothing but eggplant for that matter) my day wouldn't be as balanced.
2 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »
Not all weightloss is the same.
I do not care what anyone on here says about calorie defict. 182 pounds at 20% bodyfat vs 182 at 12% bodyfat is a very big difference. Take it from someone who had just over 18% bodyfat and lost 100 pounds. I was a smaller fat person.
Macros matter!
If you stick around long enough you'll notice that the people telling the OP not to be afraid of sugar are the same people who would be first to say that, while calories are all that matter for weight loss, body composition (maximizing fat loss over muscle loss) is largely dependent on macronutrients (mainly on getting sufficient protein). No one is saying that macros don't matter.
Oh, and if you were able to lose 100 pounds, your starting body fat percentage was a lot higher than 18%.
A LOT higher.6 -
in for later1
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »
So? Eating any one thing would kill you. This isn't what this discussion is about. No one is advocating eating nothing but sugar. Take your straw men to your own threads and don't hijack and derail a good thread where a person is asking questions because he genuinely wants to learn. I hope no one gets sucked into a useless semantics war.
I'm just catching up on this thread and thought the exact same thing as you, the OP was getting good information and was starting to better understand how weight loss works when the derailing involving a ridiculous straw man argument began...
OP I hope you will come back and share your stats: height, weight, goal weight, exercise routine, etc and open your diary. People will be happy to help you understand why you aren't losing weight.
Oh and for what it's worth, I'm a 5'2 female and lost most of my weight eating 1700 cals including plenty of sugar.3 -
Wow :noway:0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »I really don't get this sugar water shtick. I have never ever seen anyone ever even imply that you could live on sugar water...
5 -
If all calories are not the same the definition of "calorie" needs to be changed. It's a unit of energy, it doesn't know or care where it came from.5
-
markrgeary1 wrote: »If all calories are not the same the definition of "calorie" needs to be changed. It's a unit of energy, it doesn't know or care where it came from.
I think the key word is 'sources'. A calorie is a unit of measurement, but sources of calories differ wildly.1 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »The question is are all calories the same? NO, they are not.
that's the question in the title, if you read the post it goes a bit deeper than that.0 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »No, not all calories are the same. If you got all of your daily calories from table sugar and drank nothing else but water, it would kill you.
To be fair, eating a healthy balanced diet for several decades will also kill you. We're aren't getting out of here alive either way.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Finally people will get to ask questions without their threads being hijacked. I hope you don't drink too much added water on your holiday, because it would certainly kill you quicker than any sugar would.
water strips away nutrients because it washes them off the foods you already ate. think about it, it's good science.2 -
rankinsect wrote: »
I would contest that you would die from kwashiorkor - severe protein deficiency - faster than you would deplete body stores of nutrients. While things like chromium deficiency can occur, they are vanishingly rare - the first documented case being someone who had been on IV fluids for almost four years.
Even with nutrient depletion, you'd live much longer on the sugar & water diet than you would on the water-only diet.
The "sugar suppresses immune function" came from a single study in the 1970s, focused on a single subset of white blood cells, and has never been successfully replicated - and in fact other researchers have reached the opposite conclusion, that sugar intake stimulates increased immune activity.
What is fantastic is that these people claim that sugar BOTH suppressed the immune system and causes inflammation. :huh:
#nobiology12 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
What is fantastic is that these people claim that sugar BOTH suppressed the immune system and causes inflammation. :huh:
#nobiology
That's a great catch. I hadn't even processed that glaringly obvious contradiction. Wow.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
What is fantastic is that these people claim that sugar BOTH suppressed the immune system and causes inflammation. :huh:
#nobiology
But, But, But...
This is basic 101 stuff!3 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
What is fantastic is that these people claim that sugar BOTH suppressed the immune system and causes inflammation. :huh:
#nobiology
I think they're confusing 'causing inflammation' with 'inducing an inflammatory response'. A bit of putting the cart before the horse.0 -
HarperWinterberry wrote: »You can lead a horse to water, I guess... but you can't make him drink.
If you went to the right university, and studied the right courses, you should already know that 1 molecule of sugar needs 54 molecules of magnesium to process it.
If you do the research, you will find the right answer. It's not up for debate. It's science.
What water? You didn't lead us anywhere. You waved your hand at the vast information jungle that is the internet and told us that somewhere in there is some sort of life giving informational "water" that you found at the "right" university but you can't be bothered to even draw us a map on a napkin.7 -
What water? You didn't lead us anywhere. You waved your hand at the vast information jungle that is the internet and told us that somewhere in there is some sort of life giving informational "water" that you found at the "right" university but you can't be bothered to even draw us a map on a napkin.
Coincidentally enough, I could be 100% convinced that Unicorns exist - but I wouldn't be able to point to where you could find one in real life.
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 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
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions