Eating more later in the day?

Options
1234689

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    norie92 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    norie92 wrote: »
    Wow this thread is full of know-it-alls that don't know. Sugar does make you want to eat more sugar, it's like a drug. Secondly, sugar spikes insulin. Why does insulin matter? It signals your body to not release fat, after all your blood is full of sugar it can readily use as energy -- why would it go for your fat stores with that abundance of fuel circulating?


    http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sugar-addictive-cocaine-heroin-studies-suggest-article-1.356819
    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-shows-how-insulin-stimulates-fat-cells-take-glucose

    Nope

    My nutritional instructor must have been wrong, I guess I should tell her to go back to college and re-earn her Masters.

    If she claimed to be able to speak generally about what makes people hungry or said sugar "makes you want to eat more sugar" then she should, as all the credible research indicates that people vary as to what makes them satiated/hungry.

    I've been eating high sugar (lots of fruits and veg) smoothies for breakfast lately. I am no hungrier or more tempted to eat sugar or carbs than when I ate a vegetable omelet every morning. I'm usually under my carb goal, and I don't try to be -- I'd prefer to hit it and would be fine with exceeding it. The only breakfasts that cause me to be hungry sooner than usual are those with lots of high fat foods and too little protein or fiber to balance it. I don't think this means everyone should avoid such breakfasts -- just me.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Options
    FrumMama wrote: »
    I actually really enjoy cooking. Can't stand baking, though, which means no goodies here! Good way to keep from eating is just not to bake anything...but I love making food that my kids enjoy, especially when it's not typical "kid food." Still, they're big fans of pizza and pasta. Not the best for a mommy who needs to watch what she eats ;)

    I really think attitude is important for success, especially in weight management which is heavily reliant on adherence to proper calorie intake. You are making this harder for yourself than it has to be. "No goodies here!" - don't you hear that you are telling yourself "I can't have what I like"? How long do you think that will work? You can have pasta and pizza - you just have to eat the proper portions.

    This isn't easy - I've struggled with eating and weight all my life; but I've been maintaining a healthy weight for 22 months now (yes, still counting in months), and today, I realized that I couldn't keep up "healthy eating" for long because "what do I want to eat" wasn't a part of the decision-making process. It has to be part of the decision-making process in order for us to be able to stick to healthy eating for more than a few weeks/months.
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    Options
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    Mercola? Authority (not) nutrition? Nope nope nope nope. Come on now....

    Sugar is not evil. Sugar does not prevent weight loss. And BS it is as addictive as cocaine. I've worked with addicts throughout the years and I fond this comparison absolutely appalling, hurtful, disgusting....

    My almost 100lbs weight loss proves that sugar does not cause weight gain or addiction to carbs. Who starting that crock of crap anyway? I ate 'clean' vegetarian for years and I was at my worst weight. My blood tests were awful, so yeah....

    1. You are taking it out of context.
    2. The point of saying sugar has shown in studies to be addictive (whether or not more than drugs), is an important point.
    3. Mercola as an authority? Maybe not. But the study is real.
    4. There is another study I cited that showed that eating carbs made people want to eat more carbs. Sugar are carbs...
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!

    You say eating carbs makes people eat more carbs. Are these pure carbs, as in nothing else added, ie: no pastries, cookies, desserts? Are you talking about fruit or carbs paired with something else? Are these people eating straight sugar or sugar as an ingredient in a food (such as cookies or breads)? For me, I want to eat more cookies because they taste good, not from some dopamine/addiction high.
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization.

    Usually around that, yeah. With the exception of soda and hard candy, most so-called "junk food" is about half carbs and half fat (sometimes more one, sometimes more other). Some other high cal hard to resist foods tend to be high fat and then some protein and carbs (like fried chicken). This is why it's a pet peeve that they get classed as "carbs." It's ignorant or at least a misuse of the term.

    Most of those who actually buy into the addiction thing in a more credible way focus on "highly palatable foods" and those are typically a mix of fat and carbs (often with salt). That book Fat Sugar Salt talks about how fat affects our brains as strongly as sugar. And of course it's way easier to eat 100 calories of roasted plain potato and feel satisfied than to stop eating fries or chips at 100 calories for most people (both having 50% or more of their calories from fat typically). This is one reason a plain potato scores as extremely satiating, whereas fries do not.

    (I love good fries, not knocking them.)
    And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs.

    No, they were using "a cookie" as an example of "a carb" when it is not a good example at all. A carrot would be a better example, or a banana. My breakfast (as noted) was high carb, and has been for a few weeks now. I don't crave carbs -- I often have a relatively low carb lunch (salad and protein) and am perfectly satisfied. I've been trying to add in more carbs, but that's because I'm trying to eat about 50% carbs and sometimes struggle to do so.

    Oh, and simple-sugars, complex-starches. Not a meaningful difference, but about half of the carbs in the cookie are likely complex (flour), as are all of the in the chips and fries.

    On the other hand, fruit=simple carbs, and yet are much less likely to be a trigger food. It's the combination.
    Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    In the book I referenced above several studies are discussed. In the "addictive food" studies fat+carbs score higher than either alone -- it's about what we perceive as highly palatable.

    Personally, there's nothing that's mostly just carbs that I am tempted to overeat. Cheese, yeah--but right, that's fat.
    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!

    I don't like it when people misuse terms like "carbs." Calling a cookie a "carb" is silly and generalizing about "carbs" in a way that excludes a peach is similarly silly.

    Just trying to elevate the discussion, you know, since you don't seem willing to let it get back on topic but keep trying to derail.

    Yes... the fact that I'm replying to other people replying to my posts makes it my fault that the thread "derails".

    What more could you add to the OP's question anyways? I can find about 10 different answers on this thread only, I think they've got their answer. If not, this is a thread and thread's don't have specific rules to answering just one question alone.
    No, they were using "a cookie" as an example of "a carb" when it is not a good example at all. A carrot would be a better example, or a banana. My breakfast (as noted) was high carb, and has been for a few weeks now. I don't crave carbs -- I often have a relatively low carb lunch (salad and protein) and am perfectly satisfied. I've been trying to add in more carbs, but that's because I'm trying to eat about 50% carbs and sometimes struggle to do so.

    Oh, and simple-sugars, complex-starches. Not a meaningful difference, but about half of the carbs in the cookie are likely complex (flour), as are all of the in the chips and fries.

    On the other hand, fruit=simple carbs, and yet are much less likely to be a trigger food. It's the combination.

    Perhaps YOU don't think it's a good example, but that's what THEY were trying to get at.

    Carbs don't cause hunger? Then why is it a massively researched topic among obesity researchers?

    "For many individuals, the biggest ‘metabolic advantage’ of very-low carbohdyrate diets may be one of food/calorie control. Many people seem to show what might be popularly called ‘carbohydrate addiction’ (a term that is massively debated among obesity researchers) where eating even small amounts of carbs makes them want to eat more. In that case, a full blown removal of carbohydrates from the diet may be the only realistic way to limit caloric intake."

    Taken from: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html
  • elphie754
    elphie754 Posts: 7,574 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization.

    Usually around that, yeah. With the exception of soda and hard candy, most so-called "junk food" is about half carbs and half fat (sometimes more one, sometimes more other). Some other high cal hard to resist foods tend to be high fat and then some protein and carbs (like fried chicken). This is why it's a pet peeve that they get classed as "carbs." It's ignorant or at least a misuse of the term.

    Most of those who actually buy into the addiction thing in a more credible way focus on "highly palatable foods" and those are typically a mix of fat and carbs (often with salt). That book Fat Sugar Salt talks about how fat affects our brains as strongly as sugar. And of course it's way easier to eat 100 calories of roasted plain potato and feel satisfied than to stop eating fries or chips at 100 calories for most people (both having 50% or more of their calories from fat typically). This is one reason a plain potato scores as extremely satiating, whereas fries do not.

    (I love good fries, not knocking them.)
    And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs.

    No, they were using "a cookie" as an example of "a carb" when it is not a good example at all. A carrot would be a better example, or a banana. My breakfast (as noted) was high carb, and has been for a few weeks now. I don't crave carbs -- I often have a relatively low carb lunch (salad and protein) and am perfectly satisfied. I've been trying to add in more carbs, but that's because I'm trying to eat about 50% carbs and sometimes struggle to do so.

    Oh, and simple-sugars, complex-starches. Not a meaningful difference, but about half of the carbs in the cookie are likely complex (flour), as are all of the in the chips and fries.

    On the other hand, fruit=simple carbs, and yet are much less likely to be a trigger food. It's the combination.
    Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    In the book I referenced above several studies are discussed. In the "addictive food" studies fat+carbs score higher than either alone -- it's about what we perceive as highly palatable.

    Personally, there's nothing that's mostly just carbs that I am tempted to overeat. Cheese, yeah--but right, that's fat.
    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!

    I don't like it when people misuse terms like "carbs." Calling a cookie a "carb" is silly and generalizing about "carbs" in a way that excludes a peach is similarly silly.

    Just trying to elevate the discussion, you know, since you don't seem willing to let it get back on topic but keep trying to derail.

    Yes... the fact that I'm replying to other people replying to my posts makes it my fault that the thread "derails".

    What more could you add to the OP's question anyways? I can find about 10 different answers on this thread only, I think they've got their answer. If not, this is a thread and thread's don't have specific rules to answering just one question alone.
    No, they were using "a cookie" as an example of "a carb" when it is not a good example at all. A carrot would be a better example, or a banana. My breakfast (as noted) was high carb, and has been for a few weeks now. I don't crave carbs -- I often have a relatively low carb lunch (salad and protein) and am perfectly satisfied. I've been trying to add in more carbs, but that's because I'm trying to eat about 50% carbs and sometimes struggle to do so.

    Oh, and simple-sugars, complex-starches. Not a meaningful difference, but about half of the carbs in the cookie are likely complex (flour), as are all of the in the chips and fries.

    On the other hand, fruit=simple carbs, and yet are much less likely to be a trigger food. It's the combination.

    Perhaps YOU don't think it's a good example, but that's what THEY were trying to get at.

    Carbs don't cause hunger? Then why is it a massively researched topic among obesity researchers?

    "For many individuals, the biggest ‘metabolic advantage’ of very-low carbohdyrate diets may be one of food/calorie control. Many people seem to show what might be popularly called ‘carbohydrate addiction’ (a term that is massively debated among obesity researchers) where eating even small amounts of carbs makes them want to eat more. In that case, a full blown removal of carbohydrates from the diet may be the only realistic way to limit caloric intake."

    Taken from: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

    I thought derailing a thread (which this clearly is) wasn't allowed?
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    msalicia116 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!

    Quit saying people are blind to science. It's exhausting, and you're reaching. It reminds me of a tribe in Africa that says to the women that their brains are smaller and "it's only science!". Because if you say it like that, it must be true! Eye roll.

    Following you derail this whole thread is astounding. You have back peddled so much, it's obvious you have a problem being wrong. I followed Atkins for 10 years, because of people like you providing opinions posing them as "science". 10 years! Literally afraid to eat carbs. I never once felt like a normal person that entire time. And it has taken me years to reprogram myself that it's CICO, and I can eat anything that fits into my calories. And I did gain in HFLC. Why? Because it was over my TDEE.

    Your links are inconclusive. They don't specifically point to carbs or sugar, and using a food group with other macros doesn't single out carbs or sugar causing you to eat more or become addicted. I eat less now that I have a balanced diet. I feel more satiated because all those needs and wants are met. It's more satiating for me. Not to mention I don't have disordered eating product of some obsession over a gram of carbs or sugar touching my lips. See how that works. I said "for me". So when you want to preach about hunger and "knowing what the culprit is", have the decency to say that's what works for you! Instead of brainwashing people with nonscience/nonsense.

    The science is easy without you contorting it. Protein and fat has satiating qualities, to increase your protein/fat reduces the risk of eating more calories than you need. Less calories= deficit= weight loss. Don't tell people not to eat carbs or sugar, or that it will increase their hunger because that is not true. Recommend increasing protein and fat. At least then we could move on from this train wreck.


    So you're just gonna disregard my sources and support? Haha alrighty... if you want more techniques to losing fat other than counting calories which seems like most people on this thread are, let me know.

    And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...

    And I just have to add.. I think it's funny that I'm providing links and sources to an idea that carbs COULD increase hunger. Lyle McDonald, a very respected, scientific source, knows just as well as I do that it's a heavily debated topic. Meaning, there's currently evidence for both sides. You say "don't tell people that carbs increase hunger cause it's not true" show me the evidence. Show me the science and I'll stop posting on here.

    Oh, and by the way, personal experience doesn't count.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    msalicia116 wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BodyzLanguage wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    kickassketo wrote: »
    TravisGM, I'm with you. I think all the sugar in their diets, correlated with their inability to understand your point, is clear anecdotal evidence that sugar is the devil.

    Now sugar makes us stupid? I understand most of his points. I just don't agree with them. I don't believe sugar is evil, nor do I believe carbs make people hungrier.

    You're right. But particular carbs increase cravings though, it's no secret. 9 times out of 10 I'm likely to want another cookie if I eat one.

    What does that have to do with "carbs"? A cookie is about half fat. Many people have trouble moderating specific highly-palatable trigger foods, especially if they haven't had much practice in doing so and have bad habits or various other food issues built up over time.

    Lots of fruits and veg, or even foods like sweet potato or chickpeas are likely a higher percentage carbs than the cookie.


    A cookie is half fat? That's one hell of a generalization. And you're missing the point. They were trying to say that when they eat simple carbs (like the ones in cookies) they want to eat more simple carbs. Show me a study where people ate fat and wanted to eat more fat as a result.

    People on here are either blind to science or just don't like people who bring up sugar! haha my goodness!

    Quit saying people are blind to science. It's exhausting, and you're reaching. It reminds me of a tribe in Africa that says to the women that their brains are smaller and "it's only science!". Because if you say it like that, it must be true! Eye roll.

    Following you derail this whole thread is astounding. You have back peddled so much, it's obvious you have a problem being wrong. I followed Atkins for 10 years, because of people like you providing opinions posing them as "science". 10 years! Literally afraid to eat carbs. I never once felt like a normal person that entire time. And it has taken me years to reprogram myself that it's CICO, and I can eat anything that fits into my calories. And I did gain in HFLC. Why? Because it was over my TDEE.

    Your links are inconclusive. They don't specifically point to carbs or sugar, and using a food group with other macros doesn't single out carbs or sugar causing you to eat more or become addicted. I eat less now that I have a balanced diet. I feel more satiated because all those needs and wants are met. It's more satiating for me. Not to mention I don't have disordered eating product of some obsession over a gram of carbs or sugar touching my lips. See how that works. I said "for me". So when you want to preach about hunger and "knowing what the culprit is", have the decency to say that's what works for you! Instead of brainwashing people with nonscience/nonsense.

    The science is easy without you contorting it. Protein and fat has satiating qualities, to increase your protein/fat reduces the risk of eating more calories than you need. Less calories= deficit= weight loss. Don't tell people not to eat carbs or sugar, or that it will increase their hunger because that is not true. Recommend increasing protein and fat. At least then we could move on from this train wreck.


    So you're just gonna disregard my sources and support? Haha alrighty... if you want more techniques to losing fat other than counting calories which seems like most people on this thread are, let me know.

    And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwGVIl7gZ2o49oZ2yXkyxCpPyA24TU26pvrrqlozbsybVONW8D3w
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    Sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar? This is 'scientifically known?' Please provide us your sources for this claim.

    Also sounds like the OP already eats a good, healthy breakfast.

    Sugar is not the devil. ;)

    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/23/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine.aspx, also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/#2275a5184b7b.


    As for the claim that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat more sugar; https://authoritynutrition.com/how-sugar-makes-you-addicted/.

    I can provide more citations if needed.

    Mercola? Authority (not) nutrition? Nope nope nope nope. Come on now....

    Sugar is not evil. Sugar does not prevent weight loss. And BS it is as addictive as cocaine. I've worked with addicts throughout the years and I fond this comparison absolutely appalling, hurtful, disgusting....

    My almost 100lbs weight loss proves that sugar does not cause weight gain or addiction to carbs. Who starting that crock of crap anyway? I ate 'clean' vegetarian for years and I was at my worst weight. My blood tests were awful, so yeah....

    1. You are taking it out of context.
    2. The point of saying sugar has shown in studies to be addictive (whether or not more than drugs), is an important point.
    3. Mercola as an authority? Maybe not. But the study is real.
    4. There is another study I cited that showed that eating carbs made people want to eat more carbs. Sugar are carbs...

    The other study you posted matched calorie and macronutrient intake. They were comparing the GI of the entire meal, not the amount of carbohydrate.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract

    "Design: With the use of a randomized, blinded, crossover design, 12 overweight or obese men aged 18–35 y consumed high- and low-GI meals controlled for calories, macronutrients, and palatability on 2 occasions. The primary outcome was cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity, which was assessed by using arterial spin-labeling functional magnetic resonance imaging 4 h after test meals. We hypothesized that brain activity would be greater after the high-GI meal in prespecified regions involved in eating behavior, reward, and craving. "

    As shown in
    Table 1, both test meals were composed
    of similar ingredients and had the same macronutrient distri-
    bution (ProNutra Software, version 3.3.0.10; Viocare Technol-
    ogies Inc).


    You cannot claim that the differences in hunger were related to the number of carbohydrates as that wasn't what was tested.

    Yes, that's true. Do you know what contributes to high glycemic numbers? High blood sugar numbers. Do you know what increases blood sugar numbers? Carbohydrates.

    As the study itself says: Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal.

    Hmmm....
  • TravisGM92
    TravisGM92 Posts: 143 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...
    Oh really?
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:

    Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?

    Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!

    And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,212 Member
    Options
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    And for the record I didn't tell anyone to not eat sugar or carbs...
    Oh really?
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Other than that, it is scientifically known that eating sugar promotes the urge to eat even MORE sugar or carbs. So, I have to ask, what do you eat for breakfast? If it has sugar then that could be your problem. Try eating more complex carbs with a good amount of protein (oatmeal and eggs, scrambled eggs, omelets, low carb milk and high protein cereal, etc.)

    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar and it's been known to be just as addictive as cocaine:

    Wanna rephrase anything? Or you just gonna back peddle more or say we were just hallucinating the comments of yours that I just quoted about sugar being evil. So if you say sugar is evil it means eat all you want?

    Again, not telling anyone to NOT eat sugar. What part of that did I advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever the OP to not eat sugar? I said if their breakfast has sugar, that may be their problem. That DOES NOT MEAN DO NOT EAT SUGAR!

    And the sugar is devil thing was taken from a response to someone else. Again, not considering context. I explained what I meant by "sugar is the devil" right after: WE DON'T NEED SUGAR AND IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO BE JUST AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE. <<

    You said, I quoted you not someone else, you said
    TravisGM92 wrote: »
    Sugar is the devil. We don't need sugar.

    I'm pretty certain anyone who reads the English language is going to read that exactly as being an "advise/tell/command/suggest/whatever" to not eat sugar. Maybe you weren't aware that's how the English language works.

Categories