why does sugar make us fat
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »I know what you mean OP!!!
Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.) Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.
There is no queue for your nutrients. Your body will always burn both, and when you're resting even mostly fat, not sugar.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
Extra glucose is rarely if ever turned to fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
I believe the satiety factor of protein and fat quells the hunger pains. So for the CICO people, this is why there a calorie deficit, most people are good with a few choice meals that are higher in fat. However because less of it gives more satiety, then people eat less.
One Sunday, I had nothing to eat just some coffee and gatotrade for 18 hours (went to bed at 10p Saturday night, having ate all my allowed calories for the day, got up at 10a,) weighed myself as I do each morning and evening , drank a coffee and then helped my mother move her things out of storage. Had two bottles of Gatorade. We had one helper besides me and my mother...lots of lifting and stairs. Got weak then ate some protein, then dinner that night. Come Monday morning the scale read I dropped a little over 3 lbs. So, I'm gonna see if I can replicate this kind of drop. I'll report back.0 -
Christ. I posted on here what feels like minutes ago, came back to see if there was another post yet and there have been like 3 pages of posts. Nothing like sugar to get the post-spam flowing huh.
I'd need to up the sugar in my diet just to keep up with this thread.11 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »I know what you mean OP!!!
Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.) Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.
So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.
I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.
Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.
There is no queue for your nutrients. Your body will always burn both, and when you're resting even mostly fat, not sugar.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
Extra glucose is rarely if ever turned to fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
I believe the satiety factor of protein and fat quells the hunger pains. So for the CICO people, this is why there a calorie deficit, most people are good with a few choice meals that are higher in fat. However because less of it gives more satiety, then people eat less.
On Sunday, I had nothing to eat just some coffee and gatotrade for 18 hours (went to be Saturday night at 10, got up at 10a,) weight myself, drank a coffee and helped my mother move her things out of storage. Had two bottles of Gatorade. We had one helper besides me and my...lots of lifting and stairs. Monday morning the scale read I dropped a little over 3 lbs. So, I'm gonna see if I can replicate this kind of drop. I'll report back.
This is not universally true. Satiety is different for everyone.4 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
Watch the first part of this and see what they are eating;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WskSufX-_wA
Much of their food in Tonga is from New Zealand and mostly overly fatty rejected scraps that they won't eat.
Now did people in the US screw up with the Snackwells? YES! Absolutely, a low fat diet was supposed to be an increase in vegetables not an increase in refined sugars but corporations exploit what they can for the bottom line, unfortunately.2 -
TheAncientMariner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »TheAncientMariner wrote: »I don't think carbs/sugars make you fat on their own. I do know that my body does not do well with high carb intakes, especially the ones suggested by MFP. My sedentary lifestyle (do to work) simply doesn't give me a lot of opportunities to burn away that excess. Sure, it'll be converted to glycogen and stored in my muscle tissue, but everyday consumption won't allow it to be used and so it will be converted into adipose tissue. I think that I'm at a place where I burn exactly what I consume, but am not in a deficit. I tried low calorie, low calorie with running, and nothing worked but a low carb lifestyle. I don't believe we were built to consume carbs in the quantities in which we do or that are recommended for us. How else can you explain how quickly low carb/sugar lifestyles lower LDL, raise HDL, and is so efficient at removing fat directly.
It takes a lot to convert carbs to fat in reality but it does cause more fat to be stored as fat just as taking in too much fat causes more fat to be stored. The fact is, we aren't designed to eat as much as we tend to because we are in a food rich environment that has foods with that were modified throughout our history to be more calorically dense. If you look at high carb diets you see the exact same thing as low carb diets, a fast drop in LDL, raise in HDL and increase in insulin insensitivity and drop in fat stores. So how you get their just doesn't matter but if you prefer low carb then go for it but that doesn't mean it's special.
The problem is that low carb diets do not spike insulin. Carbs do. There is a vast difference between the two. I'm not just low-carbing, I'm moving my body into a state of ketosis, specifically. So there is something special about it, but if I over eat, I'm still subject to weight gain. The high fat content of my diet keeps me satiated and my liver makes the ketones that the rest of my body uses for energy. Excess is disposed of. The high fat also allows me to eat at a caloric deficit because I'm rarely hungry and even if I am, the cravings aren't nearly as strong as they were on the high carb diets so I eat less almost by default. It's a win/win all the way around. Yes, it's still calories in vs/calories out, but I much rather my body be conditioned for using ketones and fat for ALL of it's energy needs versus carbs. For the way I do things, it makes a hell of a lot of sense and the way my body has responded seems like magic. Way more energy, more mental focus, even my little knee issue seems to have disappeared. Again, I'm not speaking for everyone, just myself. So yes, it is special, but only if you do it the right way. Honestly, I even eat healthier because I'm more aware of things like vitamins, leafy greens, etc.
No, insulin spikes are not an issue unless you have a specific problem. Low fat diets have been successful in treating metobolic issues such as insulin insentivity. Now, so does ketogenic diets so it isn't that keto is special but if you find it to be better than by all means, your body and your diet so go with that. The only issue I have is when people say that it's the only way. It's A way and good luck to you.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christ. I posted on here what feels like minutes ago, came back to see if there was another post yet and there have been like 3 pages of posts. Nothing like sugar to get the post-spam flowing huh.
I'd need to up the sugar in my diet just to keep up with this thread.
Really! I am out this isn't a debate LOL.
ETA- I don't even like added sugar or sweets, I am mostly a savory girl and that's how I got fat.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sugar does not make us fat - excess calories make us fat.
Sugar is easily and readily metabolized into oxidizable energy. the fuel window for that is about 3-4 hours. Chances are (based on 2/3 of the US being overweight), a person has not used the amount of calories they just ate, so when the person's brain is sent signals from the stomach that it needs food again, the person eats again, whereby making the food they just ate be excess because they have not burned the calories off. Alas, weight is gained, and the cycle continues
This is not a compound problem, but an addition one. Among the complexities of the human metabolic system, it comes down to this: did you burn more calories than your last meal before your next one? The more you answer "yes" to this question, the better chance you have of losing weight.
Sugar decreased your chances of having more "yes" answers.
So does fatty beef or high levels of oils...so?
Fats have actually been shown to take longer to digest and increase that time between meals due to the non-release of grehlin, if the nutrition is appropriate. When combined with carbs (i.e. hamburgers and hotdogs), the effects are reduced.
Lipids cannot be utilized by the red blood cells for energy. They require glucose. Therefore, the body must do more to convert them into ready energy the cells can use. This process slows the digestive process, which slows down hunger levels.
I can go 8-10 hours on eggs and butter, whereas I couldn't even come close to that eating cereal.
Carbs are also less likely to convert to fat. It's an inefficient process and requires more energy to do so. Overfeed studies on de novo lipogensis commonly show this. IIRC, only 10 to 25% of carbs have the ability to convert. Consequently, since fats are lipid, they easily convert to body fat.
As an aside too, my normal weekend breakfast is 5 eggs, onions, peppers, 3oz of ham, spinach, 1/4 cup of cheese, salsa and a side of bacon. I am hungry within 2 hours normally. Now if I replace the bacon with roasted red potatoes, I am golden for at least 3 or 4 hours. Not much longer, but still better.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.2 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
Since you posted about it, I'll answer you: on these boards, "sugar" is often used on here as a synonym for "sweet treat" or "dessert." When people say they're cutting sugar out of their diet, they mean things like cookies, ice cream, and candy. Of course, these are combinations of carbs (not just sugar) and fat, but they're being reduced to "sugar," so that's what I assume people mean when they don't add qualifiers. I do find cookies, ice cream, and some candy filling.
Aaron mentioned specific types of sugar that connote other consumables to me. I don't add table sugar to my tea, it's a waste of calories to me. On the rare occasions I do want sweet tea, I use calorie-free sweetener. Calories from table sugar in a drink don't help to fill me up. HCFS is often added to processed foods to enhance taste, and it's the main component of caloric soft drinks (in the US, at least). Once again, the same level of fullness can be accomplished without the added calories from HCFS. So this really boils down to what "sugar" means to you.3 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.23 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
:laugh: Awesome0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
I would never based things on how many likes, awesomes, insightfuls you get. For a large part, it's just friends tagging their friends. Trust me, I can see the log of who all did it. And trust me again, I have see some ridiculous post tagged as "liked".
Also, people don't hit my post often since I am a mod. I just laugh.
What people just liking what their friends say rather than the actual quality of the post? :huh: I'm shocked I tell you shocked!
9 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
It's your delivery style and content of prior posts.4 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
Life is like that sometimes... But for me, sugar usually means some sort of fat and carbs and maybe protein if I throw in some protein powder in my baking, that is filling for me. Also I didn't see the other post as I got tired of wading through the responses. :laugh:0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
It's your delivery style and content of prior posts.
Phew! At least it's not my avatar.
1 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
It's your delivery style and content of prior posts.
Phew! At least it's not my avatar.
Nope, never even looked at it till just now. I thought you were a guy0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
...I would argue at the very far end of high calorie relative to nutrition and satisfaction are refined sugars. Things like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar are not filling, not particularly satisfying...
That is why "sugar makes us fat".
Me: "Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories."
Aaron: Insightful, Like, Awesome
Me: Not so much.
Is it my avatar or my delivery style?
I agree completely with Aaron that sugars have a place in nutrition (before a workout as Aaron's example or before/during my tennis match is the example I use frequently), I just didn't realize I had to tack that on to get any credibility.
Whatev's. I'm good. I just thought it was amusing.
Are you complaining that Aaron got lots of likes and you didn't? You just can't look at those, it's maddening. I mean, sometimes a post of mine gets lots and of course I get warm fuzzies if I see it, but often a post I worked much harder on and think was much better gets nothing, and (as you thought here) someone else saying exactly the same thing gets a bunch. Or some post saying something really inane in disagreement gets a bunch of likes (I do assume it's a friend thing then, of course, or just supporting a "side" if a debate is going on). ;-) I actually don't see why new positive reactions keep getting added, as it seems to me they just end up making this place feel like a bit of a popularity contest, but eh, no one cares what I think.
Anyway, I DON'T like things based on people being friends, and I've even liked posts by psulemon plenty of times, despite him being a mod and all (not sucking up, just stating a fact, given prior posts). Probably the majority of my likes are to posters who mostly ignore me! ;-) (Although I'm pretty liberal with positive reactions, I think.)
What I do notice is that I like when I'm engaged in a conversation and sometimes skim over posts when I'm catching up and just don't notice them (or think to like them), so it can totally be timing. I certainly notice (and get frustrated by) the fact that many people don't read anything but the first and most recent posts, so ignore super intelligent (kidding) contributions I've made or post entirely unaware of the conversation, so that posts get skipped doesn't surprise me.
For the record, here I didn't strongly agree with either of the posts in question so didn't "like" either. (Didn't dislike them, though!)
The reason: although I do think satiety is an important issue, I don't think that's why people overeat sweet treats (and I also think the reason sweet treats aren't satiating for most of us has as much to do with the fat as the sugar, as well as the refined flour in many cases). My pet theory for why people often overeat sweet treats is that they are hedonic eating -- not eating due to hunger at all. Therefore, they add calories ON TOP OF the calories that they would otherwise eat anyway, at meals. This is why cutting back if you eat a lot of sweets is often a good way to cut calories (but when I did this I cut fat as much as sugar, and I cut fat in other places too, so I wouldn't agree at all that fat is more filling than carbs). It's also why if you learn to eat sweets in moderation it's not hard to do -- that's again because it's not about satiety, as you should be eating well enough at meals to be satiated, IMO, if one has a sensible diet.
If one were hungry, there are tons of foods to choose, including foods that people know will fill them up. If someone chooses a cookie and then eats 10, that's not because they were eating for hunger. They are choosing the cookie because they like cookies and eating so many for various other reasons (lack of structure, bad habits, boredom, pleasure/hedonism, on and on). NOT because the hunger is making them -- that just makes no sense to me.8 -
I like the message that we shouldn't vilify sugar, just moderate our consumption. But IMO, the message should include an acknowledgement that sugar does have special properties (like instant energy and not filling) that are magnified when consumed in excess.0
-
@lemurcat12 I always care what you write. Always. Just throwing that out there. No more "Likes" from me.0
-
But as it was said up thread, what kind of sugar is one talking about? No one just eats plain sugar out the bag it's usually in some form of pastry or such and for some that is filling and a meal.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions