Sugar and carbs question

Options
2»

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Titoki1 wrote: »
    I overlooked her second post, so if she's not hitting her calories, then you're right, she probably isn't overeating, and there's good reason for concern there. OP, please hit your calories with a mix of your choice of high-quality sources of protein, vegetables, legumes, dairy and fruit!

    She said she's getting the message that comes with eating under 1000, and in her first message she said she was under calories. Many people high on sugar and under calories are exceeding 45 g with fruit, so jumping to cut down is IMO not appropriate without asking follow up questions and focusing on what she's not getting (which is the other reason, besides calories, that the WHO says to limit added sugar).
    There is sound evidence to suggest fructose acts on the brain in the same way as other addictive substances, but you can research that yourself

    No, there is not. There is evidence that the brain reacts to sugar and fat (which there are good evolutionary reasons for) and especially the combination as it reacts to other things that cause pleasure. This has nothing to do with fructose specifically.

    Your saying to google suggests to me that know you you cannot respond. Where are we consuming all this fructose on its own and why is it different from the fructose in fruit?

    As for juice, I don't drink it (except for rare occasion), but I seriously doubt juice is the main player in the obesity epidemic.
    You're right, I put "including fruit", when I was thinking of Wilson's stance on fructose, not WHO's (Wilson approves of the guidelines but generally recommends to include fruit in the totals, since it does contain fructose). (Also, lol, you suggest I'm lying to advance an evil healthy-eating agenda and suggest ways to try and improve someone's health after they've asked for it? How dastardly of me.)

    No, I thought you were copying from a source that was lying. Thank you for admitting it was incorrect, and that it is inapplicable in all likelihood to OP's question.

    I said nothing about an evil healthy-eating agenda. An anti fruit agenda, perhaps, but that's not IMO healthy.

    Who is "Wilson" and why should we care about his anti fruit stance?
    We eat far too much fructose.

    Eh, I don't.

    Americans in general eat too much sugar (not specifically fructose), too much fat -- both leading to too many calories -- some would say too much protein too, although I don't particularly think so. We also (more significantly) on average tend to get fat and sugar from the wrong sources (probably the same amount of both as a percentage of calories would be 100% fine if it came from better sources).
    checking out the fabulous That Sugar Film which makes our global fructose problem approachable and fun.

    Oh good lord.

    Can we get back to OP's actual question now?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    sugar is a carb...
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    Titoki1 wrote: »
    ...and checking out the fabulous That Sugar Film which makes our global fructose problem approachable and fun....

    That Sugar Film isn't a documentary, it's a pseudoscientific fearmongering hack job. Damon Gameau is an actor, not a nutritionist, and Gary Taubes is a whack job whose "work" has been widely discredited by actual credible nutrition experts. Incidentally, Taubes is nothing more than an author who has no formal training or education in nutrition. But he sure sells a lot of books about his uneducated woo.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    On the fructose thing, I am wondering if you think that HFCS is pure fructose. It is not, it is about 55% fructose, vs. sucrose (table sugar) which is about 50%. I don't agree that everyone eats lots of HFCS or that it is more addictive than table sugar or fruit sugar (or fat or petting puppies). I am a huge snob about my sweets (and what packaged foods I eat). While this is on the whole not an admirable quality, I did manage to get fat not consuming HFCS for the most part.

    I did occasionally consume apples (still do), and the sugar in them is 56% fructose. I like this example of an apple (medium) and a chocolate cookie recipe in my recipe box. The cookie has about 200 calories, the apple about 80. The sugar has sucrose, about 12 g (so broken down about the equivalent of 6 g fructose), and the apple has about 16 g total, 9 g fructose.

    Would I find it more difficult not to overeat the cookie? Sure, although I could manage it.

    How can that be, given less fructose?

    It's because I'm reacting to the combination of ingredients in the cookie, including a large amount of butter (the single largest source of calories)!
  • micaelacookie
    micaelacookie Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    Thank you everyone. My problem here is that on a typical weekday I eat about 1050 calories yet I'm full and I'm still heavy. I've been heavy since I was a kid. That's why I figured sugar was the problem. IMO I don't eat that much junk so it's just frustrating that I'm not losing weight
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    micaelacookie wrote: »
    Thank you everyone. My problem here is that on a typical weekday I eat about 1050 calories yet I'm full and I'm still heavy. I've been heavy since I was a kid. That's why I figured sugar was the problem. IMO I don't eat that much junk so it's just frustrating that I'm not losing weight

    If you are consistently eating 1,050 calories and not losing weight, I suspect the issue is that you are eating more than you think you are. Sometimes there are common logging errors that cause this -- using measuring cups instead of a food scale, choosing generic/homemade entries from the database, picking database entries with incorrect information. If you open your diary, we may be able to help you identify the problem.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    What are your stats...ht/wt/age? How long have you been eating so low? Also, can you make your diary public. With that information we can help you out more.

    To me it sounds like there is some inaccurate logging. There's no way that if you really were eating as low as 1050 calories per day you wouldn't be losing weight unless you're 4'2" or something. I'm not saying you're lying, just that however you're getting your estimate doesn't seem to be accurate.

Categories