" I ate 100 grams of sugar for a year"
Options
Replies
-
Too bad he doesn’t mention how much calories he would lose training for his bodybuilding. His lifestyle and job allows him to eat that much sugar but don’t expect a normal 9-5 job to burn all those calories for you.16
-
Too bad he doesn’t mention how much calories he would lose training for his bodybuilding. His lifestyle and job allows him to eat that much sugar but don’t expect a normal 9-5 job to burn all those calories for you.
sugar is just a carb, I eat well over 100 carbs a day... usually 200+, on 1900 cals/day12 -
Too bad he doesn’t mention how much calories he would lose training for his bodybuilding. His lifestyle and job allows him to eat that much sugar but don’t expect a normal 9-5 job to burn all those calories for you.
sugar is just a carb, I eat well over 100 carbs a day... usually 200+, on 1900 cals/day
Heck, I'm a li'l ol' lady (age 63, 5'5", weight mid-130s pounds), retired/sedentary (outside of intentional exercise) and have maintained my weight for nearly 3 years now eating over 200g carbs most days! (It was more like 150g for the year of weight loss before that, while losing 50ish lbs.)
Well-rounded nutrition is important for health, but carbs are not Da Debbil (absent a medical condition that requires managing them more closely, such as diabetes, of course).11 -
I wish someone would do a documentary of just eating ice cream over a period of time, but still staying in a calorie deficit. I feel like that would blow a lot of people's minds. Most people who have researched it think that CICO is too good to be true. I've tried to explain that you could eat straight lard all day and as long as you ate at a deficit you would still lose. You'd probably feel like absolute poo, but it's still fact.13
-
firecat1987 wrote: »I wish someone would do a documentary of just eating ice cream over a period of time, but still staying in a calorie deficit. I feel like that would blow a lot of people's minds. Most people who have researched it think that CICO is too good to be true. I've tried to explain that you could eat straight lard all day and as long as you ate at a deficit you would still lose. You'd probably feel like absolute poo, but it's still fact.
Maybe you? Make a YouTube video about your results. Probably gets millions of views. You’ll be famous.2 -
Too bad he doesn’t mention how much calories he would lose training for his bodybuilding. His lifestyle and job allows him to eat that much sugar but don’t expect a normal 9-5 job to burn all those calories for you.
100 grams of sugar is 400 calories. Calorie needs obviously vary, but that is far below the even the minimum need for small women (sedentary = 1200). I have a regular 9-5 job, and with my exercise I consistently lose on 2400 calories. So 100 grams of sugar wouldn't be a problem for me. I don't know if I actually eat that many (I don't track for it), but would have no issues if I did.6 -
The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Is my run day favourite of a 118g bag of minstrels going to drive up my blood sugar? 2 or 3 times a week, usually after 9pm but generally in deficit, occasionally maintenance.1 -
The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Sugar intake does not cause high blood sugar. It is caused by health conditions such as diabetes, which are not caused by too much sugar. So unless a person has a pre-existing condition that requires them to monitor their sugar and carb intake, a person of normal health does not need to.
10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Spurlock's Super Size Me appears to be fraud. When asked for a log of his intake, he could not provide it. That's problematic because his claimed weight gain doesn't appear possible - the calories per day needed for it appears impossible by any eating plan he could have followed at McDonald's while sticking to his rules.
I hate that Taubes has his own little rescuing hypothesis to claim obesity is a threshold response to sugar, or an epigenetic effect.The video shows that US sugar intake has decreased the last few years but obesity is still rising.
The Super Size Me results meant absolutely nothing in the end because one of the results they latched onto was the damage caused to his liver by his diet. However, Spurlock later admitted that he hadn't been sober for more than a week in the last decade, I think that might have something to do with his liver damage.7 -
Too bad he doesn’t mention how much calories he would lose training for his bodybuilding. His lifestyle and job allows him to eat that much sugar but don’t expect a normal 9-5 job to burn all those calories for you.
sugar is just a carb, I eat well over 100 carbs a day... usually 200+, on 1900 cals/day
Heck, I'm a li'l ol' lady (age 63, 5'5", weight mid-130s pounds), retired/sedentary (outside of intentional exercise) and have maintained my weight for nearly 3 years now eating over 200g carbs most days! (It was more like 150g for the year of weight loss before that, while losing 50ish lbs.)
Well-rounded nutrition is important for health, but carbs are not Da Debbil (absent a medical condition that requires managing them more closely, such as diabetes, of course).
What’s da debbil?
3 -
Too bad he doesn’t mention how much calories he would lose training for his bodybuilding. His lifestyle and job allows him to eat that much sugar but don’t expect a normal 9-5 job to burn all those calories for you.
sugar is just a carb, I eat well over 100 carbs a day... usually 200+, on 1900 cals/day
Heck, I'm a li'l ol' lady (age 63, 5'5", weight mid-130s pounds), retired/sedentary (outside of intentional exercise) and have maintained my weight for nearly 3 years now eating over 200g carbs most days! (It was more like 150g for the year of weight loss before that, while losing 50ish lbs.)
Well-rounded nutrition is important for health, but carbs are not Da Debbil (absent a medical condition that requires managing them more closely, such as diabetes, of course).
What’s da debbil?
Nickname for "the devil".2 -
The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Is my run day favourite of a 118g bag of minstrels going to drive up my blood sugar? 2 or 3 times a week, usually after 9pm but generally in deficit, occasionally maintenance.
28g of sugar in a 42 g bag of Minstrels. Yum, Minstrels! Yep, I like those for a nice treat in the evening after a run.
Nobody should give advice about your blood sugar levels based on just what you've posted.
See a doctor and get tests if you haven't for a while and you have concerns about your health.
You can check your weekly/daily sugar intake on the (iOS) app by going to:
Diary>
Nutrition (at bottom)>
Nutrients (top) >
Week/Day view
Best wishes.1 -
The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Sugar intake does not cause high blood sugar. It is caused by health conditions such as diabetes, which are not caused by too much sugar. So unless a person has a pre-existing condition that requires them to monitor their sugar and carb intake, a person of normal health does not need to.
While you are stating this as a fact, actually there’s wide disagreement in the medical community about whether excess consumption of quick-digesting carbs such as sugar contributes to the development of diabetes. While no study has ever proven causation, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between a high consumption of added sugar and diabetes. The proposed mechanism is that overproduction of insulin due to excess sugar intake leads to insulin resistance, which is logical enough.
A healthy person can safely eat a lot more sugar than a diabetic can, for sure. But one in eight Americans are diabetic and one in four are pre-diabetic. I’m not a keto fan, but the idea that sugar is great stuff and you should ignore the recommendations of the FDA and just chow down on as much as you want since it can’t hurt you isn’t necessarily valid.18 -
My uncle told me he was on the “ice cream diet” a few years back. He lost weight having ice cream for 2 meals a day. No video of this. Just an anecdote of a crazy old man enjoying life. 😂firecat1987 wrote: »I wish someone would do a documentary of just eating ice cream over a period of time, but still staying in a calorie deficit. I feel like that would blow a lot of people's minds. Most people who have researched it think that CICO is too good to be true. I've tried to explain that you could eat straight lard all day and as long as you ate at a deficit you would still lose. You'd probably feel like absolute poo, but it's still fact.
2 -
400 kcal of sugar? 25 tsp? For someone with a 1200 to 1600 kcal goal, that's 25-33% of all calories. Not denying one will lose weight in a calorie deficit, but it's not a great nutritional choice.The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Sugar intake does not cause high blood sugar. It is caused by health conditions such as diabetes, which are not caused by too much sugar. So unless a person has a pre-existing condition that requires them to monitor their sugar and carb intake, a person of normal health does not need to.
Carb intake will raise BG levels, even in healthy people.
If you get a blood glucose monitor and eat 200kcal of sugar (50g) and 200 kcal of protein and fat, the BG results will differ. If you eat more at one sitting, the results will be more dramatic. Eat all 25 teaspoons (100g) of sugar all at once, and that will differ greatly from 400 kcal of meat or cheese or eggs.
And anormal person in the USA does have insulin resistance. Current numbers are around 65%. It is thought that IR is at least partially caused by diet, aka hyperinsulinemia from too many carbs.15 -
65% is based on an estimate and some questionable assumptions.
Unlikely IR is caused by "too many carbs" in that the carb average in the US diet isn't higher than many extremely healthy diets that don't result in IR. The US diet is slightly higher fat on average, but more to the point, it seems to be excessively caloric for the average activity level and thus the obesity rate in the US has gone up (in line with the T2D rate).
I do think that high levels of sat fat, industrial seed oils, and highly processed carbs (often in combination) may have something to do with why the diet tends to be highly caloric and has some negative health effects, but I also suspect that it may just be that those things are displacing other foods that have more positive effects, like fruits and veg and fatty fish (and a messed up omega 6:3 ratio) and low fiber overall.
Singling out sugar or carbs as the problem seems really poorly thought out to me.
Rather than saying pretend we all have T2D, let's eat like people who don't get T2D (for those of us without) and eat to put it in remission (if you do). Normal (most traditional and healthy) human diets aren't super low carb on average, so the idea that's an ideal is wrong.12 -
rheddmobile wrote: »The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Sugar intake does not cause high blood sugar. It is caused by health conditions such as diabetes, which are not caused by too much sugar. So unless a person has a pre-existing condition that requires them to monitor their sugar and carb intake, a person of normal health does not need to.
While you are stating this as a fact, actually there’s wide disagreement in the medical community about whether excess consumption of quick-digesting carbs such as sugar contributes to the development of diabetes. While no study has ever proven causation, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between a high consumption of added sugar and diabetes. The proposed mechanism is that overproduction of insulin due to excess sugar intake leads to insulin resistance, which is logical enough.
A healthy person can safely eat a lot more sugar than a diabetic can, for sure. But one in eight Americans are diabetic and one in four are pre-diabetic. I’m not a keto fan, but the idea that sugar is great stuff and you should ignore the recommendations of the FDA and just chow down on as much as you want since it can’t hurt you isn’t necessarily valid.
I don't think anyone is saying that people should "chow down on as much as you want"?
5 -
65% is based on an estimate and some questionable assumptions.
Unlikely IR is caused by "too many carbs" in that the carb average in the US diet isn't higher than many extremely healthy diets that don't result in IR. The US diet is slightly higher fat on average, but more to the point, it seems to be excessively caloric for the average activity level and thus the obesity rate in the US has gone up (in line with the T2D rate).
I do think that high levels of sat fat, industrial seed oils, and highly processed carbs (often in combination) may have something to do with why the diet tends to be highly caloric and has some negative health effects, but I also suspect that it may just be that those things are displacing other foods that have more positive effects, like fruits and veg and fatty fish (and a messed up omega 6:3 ratio) and low fiber overall.
Singling out sugar or carbs as the problem seems really poorly thought out to me.
Rather than saying pretend we all have T2D, let's eat like people who don't get T2D (for those of us without) and eat to put it in remission (if you do). Normal (most traditional and healthy) human diets aren't super low carb on average, so the idea that's an ideal is wrong.
Hyperinsulinemia appears to play a role in IR. The food tha causes high insulin us typically carbs especially highly processed and refined carbs like table sugar. Pair that with fats, like pizza, and the body seems to develop IR easily.
Hyperinsulinemia without fats seems to create less fatness in people but IR still happens (like in India and china). Normal insulin levels, as often seen in a low carb diet, do not seem to cause resistance to insulin, and is now a recommended diet to treat / reverse IR (like T2D).
Not focusing on carb intake when carbs cause insulin levels to rise seems poorly thought out to me.
... I do agree that processed seed oils may play a role too.8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Sugar intake does not cause high blood sugar. It is caused by health conditions such as diabetes, which are not caused by too much sugar. So unless a person has a pre-existing condition that requires them to monitor their sugar and carb intake, a person of normal health does not need to.
While you are stating this as a fact, actually there’s wide disagreement in the medical community about whether excess consumption of quick-digesting carbs such as sugar contributes to the development of diabetes. While no study has ever proven causation, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between a high consumption of added sugar and diabetes. The proposed mechanism is that overproduction of insulin due to excess sugar intake leads to insulin resistance, which is logical enough.
A healthy person can safely eat a lot more sugar than a diabetic can, for sure. But one in eight Americans are diabetic and one in four are pre-diabetic. I’m not a keto fan, but the idea that sugar is great stuff and you should ignore the recommendations of the FDA and just chow down on as much as you want since it can’t hurt you isn’t necessarily valid.
The FDA, and other governmental agencies, recommend limiting added sugar as part of a general diet to people who just eat until they are full. Because added sugar foods tend to be both nutritionally devoid as well as caloric and not that filling. So people who just eat to they are full will be more likely to overeat on a high added sugar diet.
But for calorie counters, you only need to limit added sugars if you find that eating them makes it hard to hit your goal. If you are able to comfortably manage your goals, then the amount of added sugar you consume is irrelevant.
8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »The sugar is especially bad when you are eating excess carbs in total which is what drives up blood sugar. If you are eating in a deficit then its going to be hard to drive that blood sugar up too high given reasonable eating times, etc.
Sugar intake does not cause high blood sugar. It is caused by health conditions such as diabetes, which are not caused by too much sugar. So unless a person has a pre-existing condition that requires them to monitor their sugar and carb intake, a person of normal health does not need to.
While you are stating this as a fact, actually there’s wide disagreement in the medical community about whether excess consumption of quick-digesting carbs such as sugar contributes to the development of diabetes. While no study has ever proven causation, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between a high consumption of added sugar and diabetes. The proposed mechanism is that overproduction of insulin due to excess sugar intake leads to insulin resistance, which is logical enough.
A healthy person can safely eat a lot more sugar than a diabetic can, for sure. But one in eight Americans are diabetic and one in four are pre-diabetic. I’m not a keto fan, but the idea that sugar is great stuff and you should ignore the recommendations of the FDA and just chow down on as much as you want since it can’t hurt you isn’t necessarily valid.
The FDA, and other governmental agencies, recommend limiting added sugar as part of a general diet to people who just eat until they are full. Because added sugar foods tend to be both nutritionally devoid as well as caloric and not that filling. So people who just eat to they are full will be more likely to overeat on a high added sugar diet.
But for calorie counters, you only need to limit added sugars if you find that eating them makes it hard to hit your goal. If you are able to comfortably manage your goals, then the amount of added sugar you consume is irrelevant.
I appreciate this is the case in the US but here in the UK, the equivalent recommendation is limiting added sugar to 30g per day once you are over 11 years of age, regardless of any other factor.4
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