The theory we immediately gain weight after sudden weight loss is a false and heres why.
Replies
-
It's always good when someone, who clearly knows it all, comes on here to tell us all which misconception we are labouring under and why it is wrong.16
-
Most Asians staple of food is rice. And many Asian countries have rice with sauces on them that likely contain vegetables (some sugar), fruit (fructose) and sugar (terriyaki for example) and don't have issues of being overweight or obese. Weight gain happens from over consumption of calories, not just a particular macro.johnturnerbradley wrote: »Sugar is evil if over consumed especially when combines with high carbohydrates. I.e Various branded Sauces we combine with pasta, rice, potatoes. Sugar and Carbohydrates are both high energy sources, if over consumed consistently together there is only one result... weight gain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Nope.johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »OP - congrats on your success but you are slipping into evangelism for what worked for you and then projecting that into advice for everybody.
I was successful losing weight with a very different strategy. Sugar and carbs in general are simply not an issue for me, not the reason I gained weight either. My strategy would most likely only be suitable for a small proportion of people and I certainly don't think everyone needs to do the same as me, that would be silly. The one constant for successful weight loss is achieving a sustainable calorie deficit over an extended period of time and adherence is incredibly personal.
There's days I have extraordinary high levels of both sugar and carbs in general - think 800g of carbs was my highest? But that's in context of my exercise needs, to say they are evil is missing the point of context.
What was your strategy of losing weight, how much did you lose and how long did it take you?
I agree, the way in which each and everyone achieves our goals is individual and creating our own strategy or looking for a template to work off of is more likely to succeed long term.
But if someone was overweight and they wanted to know how I lost so much then I guarantee my strategy would work for them. It's not to say others wouldn't do the same but as general proven guidance keep carbs and sugar low watch the calories and see the weight fly off.
If you create a calorie deficit with carbs or without carbs, and the deficits are equal, the weight loss is the same.
If someone that wanted to lose weight ate a whole tub of ice cream which was 2000 calories and nothing else all day then I would probably agree with you, they may lose weight. But that person is going to walk around hungry and when we are hungry we eat, it animal nature. If we don't then we are unhappy and will lose interest.
But essentially i completely disagree with you. If two twins with identical weights, heights, activity levels etc were to compete in a weight loss challenge. One were to eat Mcdonalds high is sugar and carbs but was only allowed to eat 2000 calories the other twin was only allowed to eat chicken and rice hitting 2000 calories per day.
The twin eating chicken and rice would lose more weight than the other even if the calories were the same due to the nutritional break down of macros in the food.
5 -
Yeah, no. Nutritional value has more to do with optimal health, not calories burned or stored.johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »OP - congrats on your success but you are slipping into evangelism for what worked for you and then projecting that into advice for everybody.
I was successful losing weight with a very different strategy. Sugar and carbs in general are simply not an issue for me, not the reason I gained weight either. My strategy would most likely only be suitable for a small proportion of people and I certainly don't think everyone needs to do the same as me, that would be silly. The one constant for successful weight loss is achieving a sustainable calorie deficit over an extended period of time and adherence is incredibly personal.
There's days I have extraordinary high levels of both sugar and carbs in general - think 800g of carbs was my highest? But that's in context of my exercise needs, to say they are evil is missing the point of context.
What was your strategy of losing weight, how much did you lose and how long did it take you?
I agree, the way in which each and everyone achieves our goals is individual and creating our own strategy or looking for a template to work off of is more likely to succeed long term.
But if someone was overweight and they wanted to know how I lost so much then I guarantee my strategy would work for them. It's not to say others wouldn't do the same but as general proven guidance keep carbs and sugar low watch the calories and see the weight fly off.
If you create a calorie deficit with carbs or without carbs, and the deficits are equal, the weight loss is the same.
If someone that wanted to lose weight ate a whole tub of ice cream which was 2000 calories and nothing else all day then I would probably agree with you, they may lose weight. But that person is going to walk around hungry and when we are hungry we eat, it animal nature. If we don't then we are unhappy and will lose interest.
But essentially i completely disagree with you. If two twins with identical weights, heights, activity levels etc were to compete in a weight loss challenge. One were to eat Mcdonalds high is sugar and carbs but was only allowed to eat 2000 calories the other twin was only allowed to eat chicken and rice hitting 2000 calories per day.
The twin eating chicken and rice would lose more weight than the other even if the calories were the same due to the nutritional break down of macros in the food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »OP - congrats on your success but you are slipping into evangelism for what worked for you and then projecting that into advice for everybody.
I was successful losing weight with a very different strategy. Sugar and carbs in general are simply not an issue for me, not the reason I gained weight either. My strategy would most likely only be suitable for a small proportion of people and I certainly don't think everyone needs to do the same as me, that would be silly. The one constant for successful weight loss is achieving a sustainable calorie deficit over an extended period of time and adherence is incredibly personal.
There's days I have extraordinary high levels of both sugar and carbs in general - think 800g of carbs was my highest? But that's in context of my exercise needs, to say they are evil is missing the point of context.
What was your strategy of losing weight, how much did you lose and how long did it take you?
I agree, the way in which each and everyone achieves our goals is individual and creating our own strategy or looking for a template to work off of is more likely to succeed long term.
But if someone was overweight and they wanted to know how I lost so much then I guarantee my strategy would work for them. It's not to say others wouldn't do the same but as general proven guidance keep carbs and sugar low watch the calories and see the weight fly off.
If you create a calorie deficit with carbs or without carbs, and the deficits are equal, the weight loss is the same.
If someone that wanted to lose weight ate a whole tub of ice cream which was 2000 calories and nothing else all day then I would probably agree with you, they may lose weight. But that person is going to walk around hungry and when we are hungry we eat, it animal nature. If we don't then we are unhappy and will lose interest.
But essentially i completely disagree with you. If two twins with identical weights, heights, activity levels etc were to compete in a weight loss challenge. One were to eat Mcdonalds high is sugar and carbs but was only allowed to eat 2000 calories the other twin was only allowed to eat chicken and rice hitting 2000 calories per day.
The twin eating chicken and rice would lose more weight than the other even if the calories were the same due to the nutritional break down of macros in the food.
why? please site studies for this please.
I agree with Hornsby calorie deficit for weight loss.
I lost 50lbs in a year...have maintained within 10lbs for the last 2 years all with just calories.
I do watch my macros for health and fitness as I lift but that is the only reason..
And yes I eat lots of sugar...but I don't track it cause it doesn't matter.
Im not saying no to calorie deficit thats all i work on but essentially for faster weight loss limiting the amount of sugar / carbs will have a more positive effect than if you just ate 2000 calories worth of sugar.
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.
When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".
The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.
But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.
This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.0 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »Sugar is evil if over consumed especially when combines with high carbohydrates. I.e Various branded Sauces we combine with pasta, rice, potatoes. Sugar and Carbohydrates are both high energy sources, if over consumed consistently together there is only one result... weight gain.
Sugar is not evil.
Sugars are carbohydrates. In fact, all carbohydrates are sugars. Simple sugars are short chained carbohydrates and complex sugars are long chained carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates alone do not cause weight gain. Overconsumption of calories, regardless of the macro they come from, causes weight gain.
A piece of paster vs grained sugar that is added to 80% of food we see in our shops. That is the difference.
Yes again i have said surplus of calories. read post pal0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »philippakate197 wrote: »OP, I'm glad you found what worked for you, but please stop projecting your method as right for everyone. Physiologically, it would work for everyone as you have created a deficit, however you have not taken the psychological factors into account.
Personally, and from what I've read on the forums, a lot of other mfp-ers agree, the low/no carbs and sugar would be so restrictive as to not be sustainable. When I view a food as off limits or 'bad', it just increases the desire for it. Having regular amounts of carbs and sugar, within my calorie limit, whether I'm exercising that day or not, is more realistic for me and many others.
As for whether or not a person would regain weight once they stop implementing the habits that caused weight loss/maintenance - well, yeah, not a huge surprise there.
Not to offend as I appreciate you commenting but I do find your comment a little contradictory. So you have said it would work, so I am right and you agree low carb and low sugar with with exercise will help people lose weight?
I haven't said it is sustainable, Im not going to eat like this forever, just to hit my weight loss goals. If i continued then I would be too light. Where have I said it is sustainable?
Its about averages.. can people not read. firstly I have said if people want to eat what they want then go ahead but if you don't want to put weight on average it out. If you were to eat 4000 calories 3 days in a row and then tried to maintain your diet you would gain weight. Do you not realise that?
I have also said in other posts this is mainly about people thinking they have lost a few pounds and then within a week they have put the weight back on. It is mainly due to water weight.
Uhh... you know decreasing your carbs is not the only way of getting lower calories, right?
How on gods green earth have you assumed I think that only carbs have calories. Mate get to the opticians
0 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »OP - congrats on your success but you are slipping into evangelism for what worked for you and then projecting that into advice for everybody.
I was successful losing weight with a very different strategy. Sugar and carbs in general are simply not an issue for me, not the reason I gained weight either. My strategy would most likely only be suitable for a small proportion of people and I certainly don't think everyone needs to do the same as me, that would be silly. The one constant for successful weight loss is achieving a sustainable calorie deficit over an extended period of time and adherence is incredibly personal.
There's days I have extraordinary high levels of both sugar and carbs in general - think 800g of carbs was my highest? But that's in context of my exercise needs, to say they are evil is missing the point of context.
What was your strategy of losing weight, how much did you lose and how long did it take you?
I agree, the way in which each and everyone achieves our goals is individual and creating our own strategy or looking for a template to work off of is more likely to succeed long term.
But if someone was overweight and they wanted to know how I lost so much then I guarantee my strategy would work for them. It's not to say others wouldn't do the same but as general proven guidance keep carbs and sugar low watch the calories and see the weight fly off.
If you create a calorie deficit with carbs or without carbs, and the deficits are equal, the weight loss is the same.
If someone that wanted to lose weight ate a whole tub of ice cream which was 2000 calories and nothing else all day then I would probably agree with you, they may lose weight. But that person is going to walk around hungry and when we are hungry we eat, it animal nature. If we don't then we are unhappy and will lose interest.
But essentially i completely disagree with you. If two twins with identical weights, heights, activity levels etc were to compete in a weight loss challenge. One were to eat Mcdonalds high is sugar and carbs but was only allowed to eat 2000 calories the other twin was only allowed to eat chicken and rice hitting 2000 calories per day.
The twin eating chicken and rice would lose more weight than the other even if the calories were the same due to the nutritional break down of macros in the food.
why? please site studies for this please.
I agree with Hornsby calorie deficit for weight loss.
I lost 50lbs in a year...have maintained within 10lbs for the last 2 years all with just calories.
I do watch my macros for health and fitness as I lift but that is the only reason..
And yes I eat lots of sugar...but I don't track it cause it doesn't matter.
Im not saying no to calorie deficit thats all i work on but essentially for faster weight loss limiting the amount of sugar / carbs will have a more positive effect than if you just ate 2000 calories worth of sugar.
Nobody just eats 2000 cals of sugar. Nor is McD just sugar.
Again - please give us those references for that twin study of 200 cals McDonalds vs Chicken and Rice. Otherwise this is fantasy-land-pulling-bs-out-your-ear-stuff.
3 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »
Everyone has a certain amount of mass to maintain? Calories should be based on an individual's weight. Macros should be as well, although how many carbs someone eats boils down to personal preference.
And meal timing doesn't matter, so the 3 vs 5 meals per day is moot; it depends again on personal preference.1 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.
When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".
The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.
But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.
This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
Nope - stomach size doesn't change.
What is "moralism kicking in"?
Nope - it is not more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
Are you going to hit every nutritional myth here?9 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »Im deleting this post your all idiots who cannot read.
The fact of the matter is, as only some of you have read properly it is about water weight and how people do not account of water when they stop training. Man i don't know what they feed you in your country but it sounds like a big spoon full of stupid!
Insults are not necessary.
I tried to stay out. Now we're talkin'.
Guy comes on with 35 posts. Decides to take on [yet another] debate about carbs - for the 20,000th time - this month... Cannot gain traction. Gets mad, throws insults, threatens to take ball and go home. Have I got the cliff notes?
22 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »I have just had a nose at your profile Hornsby and you went from 203 pounds to 173 pounds... Did you consume 1900 calories for breakfast then? Did you eat 200 grams of sugar per day?
If not, why not?
No, I was not maintaining my weight then, I was losing weight. So I ate less everything to create a deficit. And to be clear the 1900 for breakfast comment was a tongue and cheek comment.
So you ate 200 grams of sugar per day to maintain weight? Why would you do that?
No, I ate less of everything including sugar.
I like fruit, especially pineapples and bananas and they have lots of sugar. I like Tootsie Pops. I prefer sugar as quick energy when exercising. It tastes good. Those are some of the reasons why.
Ah Ok, so you do agree with me then, reduce carbs and sugar to lose weight.
Now you like sugar because your aim is different. Thats just practical. For anyone looking to achieve mass or gain weight then sugar is good.
Maybe it's because you keep restating this over and over again despite the fact that Hornsby clearly said he reduced everything
I get that you want to prove your case, but cherry picking what you want to hear in order to support your case, and ignoring the rest doesn't really convince anyone.
Just my two cents..carry on..
1 -
OP lost weight at a lower calorie for a male and now knows everything, got it. Love MFP. LOL
It's at least 5 minutes since the last "sugar is the devil" thread.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »Im deleting this post your all idiots who cannot read.
The fact of the matter is, as only some of you have read properly it is about water weight and how people do not account of water when they stop training. Man i don't know what they feed you in your country but it sounds like a big spoon full of stupid!
Insults are not necessary.
I tried to stay out. Now we're talkin'.
Guy comes on with 35 posts. Decides to take on [yet another] debate about carbs - for the 20,000th time - this month... Cannot gain traction. Gets mad, throws insults, threatens to take ball and go home. Have I got the cliff notes?
That's it in a nutshell.
0 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »
I'm 175lbs at 7%... Let me know when not eating added sugar gets you there...
#proofisinthepudding13 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »philippakate197 wrote: »OP, I'm glad you found what worked for you, but please stop projecting your method as right for everyone. Physiologically, it would work for everyone as you have created a deficit, however you have not taken the psychological factors into account.
Personally, and from what I've read on the forums, a lot of other mfp-ers agree, the low/no carbs and sugar would be so restrictive as to not be sustainable. When I view a food as off limits or 'bad', it just increases the desire for it. Having regular amounts of carbs and sugar, within my calorie limit, whether I'm exercising that day or not, is more realistic for me and many others.
As for whether or not a person would regain weight once they stop implementing the habits that caused weight loss/maintenance - well, yeah, not a huge surprise there.
Not to offend as I appreciate you commenting but I do find your comment a little contradictory. So you have said it would work, so I am right and you agree low carb and low sugar with with exercise will help people lose weight?
I haven't said it is sustainable, Im not going to eat like this forever, just to hit my weight loss goals. If i continued then I would be too light. Where have I said it is sustainable?
Its about averages.. can people not read. firstly I have said if people want to eat what they want then go ahead but if you don't want to put weight on average it out. If you were to eat 4000 calories 3 days in a row and then tried to maintain your diet you would gain weight. Do you not realise that?
I have also said in other posts this is mainly about people thinking they have lost a few pounds and then within a week they have put the weight back on. It is mainly due to water weight.
Uhh... you know decreasing your carbs is not the only way of getting lower calories, right?
How on gods green earth have you assumed I think that only carbs have calories. Mate get to the opticians
You're the one who keeps saying to go low carb/low sugar.
FTR - lost 175# in 4 years eating plenty of foods including carbs.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I know right? I was fretting about how we'd ever talk about sugar again since our most recent anti-sugar proponent deleted her account after yesterday's Red Bull fiasco.
Who will show us the error of our ways now?? 3 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.
When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".
The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.
But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.
This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.
0 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »Im deleting this post your all idiots who cannot read.
The alternative would be to actually take on board what people are saying.
No-one actually minds if you do low carb / high carb / add sugar to your porridge or not but what you are stating as facts simply aren't, they are your opinion and actually not a very well informed opinion.
Maybe a cup of hot, sweet tea would help calm you down?
That's what us Brits have been doing for centuries.
That sounds lovely, thank you. With milk, please.0 -
Congrats on your weight loss.
Your statements about sugar being prohibitive of fat loss are false.
Water weight does decrease and increase as total carbohydrate fluctuates within the diet but it's not an "on/off" switch.
Changes in body weight come from a variety of sources. Changes in water weight, glycogen, differences in food content from natural changes in food weight vs "bathroom habits", and (small) differences in protein turnover and of course differences between fat storage and fat oxidation from day to day.
You are still storing and oxidizing fat when water weight goes up and down.
Finally the only way you accumulate fat is for fat storage to exceed fat oxidation over a given time period. And the only way you lose fat is when fat oxidation exceeds fat storage over a given time period.
Even in the presence of added sugar and carbohydrate, fat oxidation will exceed fat storage if you consume fewer calories than you burn.
7 -
The primary concerns about added sugar are that it is VERY easy for diets high in added sugar to become hypercaloric.
Secondary concerns are that diets high in added sugar tend to be of poor nutrient quality because foods high in added sugar tend to be foods with low nutrient density.
Avoiding FRUIT because of sugar is a really poor strategy unless for some reason you have a medical need to do so and even every T2 diabetic that I know (I coach a few of them) eats a variety of fruit on a regular basis.
Macronutrition does matter in that it may effect energy expenditure, it WILL effect satiety and adherence, and it WILL effect other important aspects of long term progress. For example protein obviously contributes towards skeletal muscle repair and growth, carbohydrates are great to fuel intense training performance and training PERFORMANCE is a potent mediator of strength and hypertrophy. Etc.
And so this is NOT me saying that "only calories matter". Far from it.
But adding some sugar to a diet that's otherwise reasonably set up, especially in a training population, isn't going to do any noticeable harm to fat loss.
Here's a more complete take on it: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/SideSteel/view/sugar-scapegoat-and-scaremongering-something-to-monitor-8751527 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.
When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".
The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.
But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.
This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.
I'll translate: I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll keep posting nonsense.2 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.
When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".
The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.
But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.
This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.
I'll translate: I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll keep posting nonsense.
Maybe I would understand if I hadn't eaten that big spoon full of stupid!!
(Sorry, that's the funniest thing I've seen today. I can't help myself!)0 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »
But essentially i completely disagree with you. If two twins with identical weights, heights, activity levels etc were to compete in a weight loss challenge. One were to eat Mcdonalds high is sugar and carbs but was only allowed to eat 2000 calories the other twin was only allowed to eat chicken and rice hitting 2000 calories per day.johnturnerbradley wrote: »OP - congrats on your success but you are slipping into evangelism for what worked for you and then projecting that into advice for everybody.
I was successful losing weight with a very different strategy. Sugar and carbs in general are simply not an issue for me, not the reason I gained weight either. My strategy would most likely only be suitable for a small proportion of people and I certainly don't think everyone needs to do the same as me, that would be silly. The one constant for successful weight loss is achieving a sustainable calorie deficit over an extended period of time and adherence is incredibly personal.
There's days I have extraordinary high levels of both sugar and carbs in general - think 800g of carbs was my highest? But that's in context of my exercise needs, to say they are evil is missing the point of context.
What was your strategy of losing weight, how much did you lose and how long did it take you?
I agree, the way in which each and everyone achieves our goals is individual and creating our own strategy or looking for a template to work off of is more likely to succeed long term.
But if someone was overweight and they wanted to know how I lost so much then I guarantee my strategy would work for them. It's not to say others wouldn't do the same but as general proven guidance keep carbs and sugar low watch the calories and see the weight fly off.
If you create a calorie deficit with carbs or without carbs, and the deficits are equal, the weight loss is the same.
The twin eating chicken and rice would lose more weight than the other even if the calories were the same due to the nutritional break down of macros in the food.
This is objectively false.
The laws of thermodynamics demand that if energy expenditure and calorie intake are the same (thus creating equal deficits) the same amount of energy must be utilized from existing stores, resulting in the same amount of weight lost.
Macros are important for a lot of things, but the rate of weight loss is not one of them.0 -
Additional considerations regarding sugar -- and keep in mind (this is important) I'm not suggesting that people eat sugar with no regard to a healthy diet, appropriate nutritional intake and appropriate total calorie intake.
Having said that, if sugar by itself were some inherently obesogenic substrate I would think that we'd see substantial differences in fat loss when carbohydrates are replaced with straight sugar.
But:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11477496
Slightly greater weight loss in the higher added sugar group ^
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094871
(Full text: http://www.conazucar.com/pdf/informes/sobrepeso/Metabolic-and-behavioral-effects-of-high-sucrose-diet-during-weight-loss.pdf)
^ "Results showed that a high sucrose content in a hypoenergetic, low-fat diet did not adversely affect weight loss, metabolism, plasma lipids, or emotional affect."
And keep in mind this was a high carb diet where the high sugar group was eating a BUTTLOAD of sugar and they STILL lost fat because calorie deficit and the differences in fat loss between groups was insignificant (.4%)
(Important note: With respect to that last study, a valid concern about high sugar diets in free living conditions is that they are NOT typically hypoenergetic, which is again why added sugar can be concerning as I outlined in my previously linked blog post)5 -
johnturnerbradley wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »Sugar is evil if over consumed especially when combines with high carbohydrates. I.e Various branded Sauces we combine with pasta, rice, potatoes. Sugar and Carbohydrates are both high energy sources, if over consumed consistently together there is only one result... weight gain.
Sugar is not evil.
Sugars are carbohydrates. In fact, all carbohydrates are sugars. Simple sugars are short chained carbohydrates and complex sugars are long chained carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates alone do not cause weight gain. Overconsumption of calories, regardless of the macro they come from, causes weight gain.
A piece of paster vs grained sugar that is added to 80% of food we see in our shops. That is the difference.
Yes again i have said surplus of calories. read post pal
I don't know what pastor is. Is it an evil or saintly carbohydrate?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »johnturnerbradley wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.
When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".
The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.
But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.
This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
Nope - stomach size doesn't change.
What is "moralism kicking in"?
Nope - it is not more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.
Are you going to hit every nutritional myth here?
Buzzfeed education at its finest.1 -
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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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