We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Whats the BEST Tea for Weight Loss?
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »
I was actually on PubMed trying to find that one, and apparently wasn't using the right search parameters.
Thanks!
Search terms: sugar obesity
Filters: Review, Human
(my profs would have been very disappointed if I couldn't manage to find something like that with minimal efforts)5 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »
Search terms: sugar obesity
Filters: Review, Human
(my profs would have been very disappointed if I couldn't manage to find something like that with minimal efforts)
Doh. Sugar + obesity. Of course, I didn't try that.
My educational history is not scientific.5 -
2
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Are the fatty acids you get from oil not more beneficial to the body than just mere fuel?10 -
Look at that, it worked!
9 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Are the fatty acids you get from oil not more beneficial to the body than just mere fuel?
The essential ones? Do you know how much essential fatty acids your body actually needs? It's less than 20 grams per day. Anything above that...8 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The essential ones? Do you know how much essential fatty acids your body actually needs? It's less than 20 grams per day. Anything above that...
And to dish out ye olde "but there's better things to use your calories on", fish contains essential fatty acids and has better nutrients across the board than oil.14 -
stevencloser wrote: »
And to dish out ye olde "but there's better things to use your calories on", fish contains essential fatty acids and has better nutrients across the board than oil.
That was exactly my point. If we're going purely by nutrition, no one would be using oil. They would be getting their fat elsewhere. People use oil for the same reasons they use sugar: it makes things taste good.17 -
KTaurusW0516 wrote: »Green Tea? Sage? Peppermint?
Having fun yet :-) As far as I can tell tea does not aid in weight loss, I drink passion fruit ice tea daily, I make a large pitcher and add sugar, I just add half of the sugar it calls for, 4 teaspoons instead of 8 to 64 oz. I account for this small amount of sugar and would rather have sugar then artificial sweetener as they make me feel odd. If it keeps you off the high calories sugar drinks I say enjoy tea, just account for it. BTW... I don't drink the whole pitcher every day.3 -
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
I can try Google and find many articles about how the pyramids in Egypt were built by reptile aliens. "I can find it on Google" is a terrible standard for judging whether or not something is factual.15 -
Ok. So I post an article, you just say it's fake. You post no proof at all, and I'm supposed to believe you?
I get it. I guess people on MFP just value post count over legitimate proof. You could try this search engine called "Google" and find many articles about sugar and that it can greatly slow down weight loss.
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.17 -
Yes, I've heard of this thing called Google. But I kinda lost faith in it when I googled "flat earth" and found all kinds of "proof" that the Earth is really flat. So instead, how about you post/link all the studies showing that sugar causes weight gain, since you made the claim? Not "articles" or blog entries - actual peer-reviewed studies. And as you search for them, keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e749215 -
I posted off the site you're on, because I figured you'd trust the site you're on. Seems logical to me.
Obviously it doesn't matter what I post, you're just going to *kitten* on it. What's the point?
Here's one I already had open in tabs.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:...The data suggest that the change in body fatness that occurs with modifying intake of sugars results from an alteration in energy balance rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides. Owing to the multifactorial causes of obesity, it is unsurprising that the effect of reducing intake is relatively small. The extent to which population based advice to reduce sugars might reduce risk of obesity cannot be extrapolated from the present findings, because few data from the studies lasted longer than ten weeks...
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).21 -
Did you even bother to read that one before linking to it? I don't think it says what you think it says. Generally speaking, if you're going to link a study to prove your point, it should prove, rather than disprove, your point.
From the "Conclusions" section:
"Results from an alteration in energy balance". That part means it results from a change in how many calories you consume vs. how many calories you expend. "Rather than a physiological or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or discaccharides". In other words, it's the calories, not the sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides are sugars).
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
14 -
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
14 -
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
Um, that's because the reduction in sugar intake reduced their caloric intake to the point where they were in a deficit. Do the exact thing with bread, pasta, oils, fat and the results would be identical.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Are you saying that weight gain is linked to the increase in caloric substances and weight loss is linked to a decrease in caloric substances!?
What exactly are we arguing about again?
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.18 -
30 of 7895 trials and 38 of 9445 cohort studies were eligible. In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.21; P<0.001); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30 to 1.19; P=0.001).
"Associated with". Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Also, did you notice the 'ad libitum' part about diet? Which means that they were freely eating and calories weren't equated? Also, did you notice the sentence immediately after your quoted portion, which you omitted?:Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight (0.04 kg, −0.04 to 0.13).
That means if calories were held equivalent, there was no change in body weight when other carbohydrates were exchanged with dietary sugars. And that finding was associated with a high confidence interval and a low 'p' value.
Correlation vs. causation. I see a lot of fat people exercising. So does that mean that exercising makes people fat? Or is the correlation between the two an indicator of something else?
In other news, the per capita consumption of beef is "associated with" deaths caused by lightning:
The cost of 16 oz. of potato chips is "associated with" deaths by falling out of wheelchairs:
The per capita consumption of cheese is "associated with" total revenue generated by golf courses:
None of those correlations have anything whatsoever to do with causation. There's a difference.13 -
Best quote ever-Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.16
-
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
Is broccoli a better choice for sweetening my tea? Is a ribeye steak? Is avocado?
The point that you are missing is that many people that you’re arguing with have made the choice to limit sugary drinks or other calorie dense substances in favor of other choices. It doesn’t make sugar bad or inherently a bad choice or something else inherently a better choice. Why I choose to just drink straight herbal tea is because I would rather spend my CALORIES on other things like wine, but I still enjoy tea too. The good news is that in the context of a balanced, calorie appropriate diet, I can have both and meet my goals because it’s the CALORIES that matter.
15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Is broccoli a better choice for sweetening my tea? Is a ribeye steak? Is avocado?
The point that you are missing is that many people that you’re arguing with have made the choice to limit sugary drinks or other calorie dense substances in favor of other choices. It doesn’t make sugar bad or inherently a bad choice or something else inherently a better choice. Why I choose to just drink straight herbal tea is because I would rather spend my CALORIES on other things like wine, but I still enjoy tea too. The good news is that in the context of a balanced, calorie appropriate diet, I can have both and meet my goals because it’s the CALORIES that matter.
Exactly. I use artificial sweeteners in my drinks (if I use any sweetener at all) because I'd rather spend those calories on FOOD. Not because sugar is the devil or has any magical fattening properties.9 -
All I've said, and continued to say - is that there are much better options than sugar. It's not complicated.
I've also said there are likely options for tea that the original poster won't need sugar for.
There is not a thing wrong with adding sugar (16 calories per teaspoon, honey has 22 calories per teaspoon) to anything you desire to consume.
For weight loss, consume less calories than your body burns, for maintaining weight, consume equal amount of calories your body burns, for gaining weight, consume more calories than your body burns.
Sugar, as all foods, in moderation.
6 -
missysippy930 wrote: »
There is not a thing wrong with adding sugar (16 calories per teaspoon, honey has 22 calories per teaspoon) to anything you desire to consume.
For weight loss, consume less calories than your body burns, for maintaining weight, consume equal amount of calories your body burns, for gaining weight, consume more calories than your body burns.
Sugar, as all foods, in moderation.
Well, duh.
I never said that it would make you magically gain weight. I said there are teas out there that will make you not need sugar in it, and that those calories are likely spent better elsewhere.
I understand calories in calories out. That's part of my suggestion.11 -
I drink and eat more sugar probably compared to a lot of others on this site and I still lost weight. I eat a LOT of carbs,still lose weight. if I cut down on those things then I create an even bigger deficit if I dont replace those calories with something else. I lost weight because of a deficit. while I do drink unsweetened tea a majority of the time. I do consume a lot of sugar/carbs. have had no issues losing. I got fat eating more fruits and veggies than I did"sugary" foods(added sugar and processed sugars). I can eat at least a part of my weight in fruit no jokes. I gained weight because I was eating in a SURPLUS of calories. I wasnt fat before then I was a healthy weight,I just became sedentary and started eating more than my body needed.5
-
Sugar can be detrimental to weight loss; and a lot of sugar replacements can be just as bad.
Unless it takes you over your calorie goals, sugar will not hurt weight loss.
I have no idea why you think artificial sweeteners would affect weight at all.9 -
Well, duh.
I never said that it would make you magically gain weight. I said there are teas out there that will make you not need sugar in it, and that those calories are likely spent better elsewhere.
I understand calories in calories out. That's part of my suggestion.
But again, in the context of a calorie deficit in a diet that already hits macro and micro nutrient goals - you don’t get extra credit for eating more broccoli instead of that 20 cal tsp of sugar. That is all we have been saying, you keep saying that there are better choices, but life is not about clear black and white, good and bad decisions. What should I spend that 20 calories on, since there must be a better choice? What is the definitively superior choose to a spoonful of sugar?3 -
KTaurusW0516 wrote: »Green Tea? Sage? Peppermint?
@KTaurusW0516 If you're still around, drink whatever tea you like. I enjoy a cup or three of peppermint or rooibos tea in the evening to help keep the munchies at bay. It won't create weight loss, but it does satisfy some of the hand-to-mouth habits I have at night.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
Unless it takes you over your calorie goals, sugar will not hurt weight loss.
I have no idea why you think artificial sweeteners would affect weight at all.
Well apparently they turn your poop purple so maybe the shock of seeing that would send you running? That’s the only thing I can come up with after this crazy circular logic thread.5 -
I'm not sure OP is coming back to this gong show, but if she's still reading, hopefully she's getting a giggle.
Tea doesn't help with weight loss. If you enjoy it, drink it, and log it. If you want sugar or artificial sweeteners in it, use it, and log it. If you're still reading this thread, have a glass of wine, and log it.
Bottom line. Life is too short to be drinking/eating stuff you don't enjoy. Find what works for you. There is no need to stress over everything, and there is no need to be labeling food/drink/sugar as good or bad. We have enough to worry about without worrying about these things. Just log it.7 -
"Associated with". Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Also, did you notice the 'ad libitum' part about diet? Which means that they were freely eating and calories weren't equated? Also, did you notice the sentence immediately after your quoted portion, which you omitted?:
That means if calories were held equivalent, there was no change in body weight when other carbohydrates were exchanged with dietary sugars. And that finding was associated with a high confidence interval and a low 'p' value.
Correlation vs. causation. I see a lot of fat people exercising. So does that mean that exercising makes people fat? Or is the correlation between the two an indicator of something else?
In other news, the per capita consumption of beef is "associated with" deaths caused by lightning:
The cost of 16 oz. of potato chips is "associated with" deaths by falling out of wheelchairs:
The per capita consumption of cheese is "associated with" total revenue generated by golf courses:
None of those correlations have anything whatsoever to do with causation. There's a difference.
So if we reduce the number of wheelchair deaths, the cost of potato chips will go down?
ETA: And if there's someone I don't like, but want their death to look like an "accident" I just need to feed them lots of beef? Asking this one for a friend.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions