EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!
Replies
-
This believe that a calorie is a calorie?0
-
Robert Lustig is a known quack.
Excess calories cause obesity.0 -
How do you know that?
0 -
I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.0
-
but excess any food causes obesity. meh.0
-
So a blog from 2 years ago is the proof we've all been waiting for.
Who knew.0 -
RGV, at least you read it. He was discussing this on PBS this weekend and what he said made perfect sense.
0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »RGV, at least you read it. He was discussing this on PBS this weekend and what he said made perfect sense.
I've got a bookshelf full of books about how 9/11 was an inside job, UFOs, ancient aliens, people who met Death and other stuff. It all reads like it makes perfect sense too, because they word it that way.0 -
He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.0 -
0 -
I went years with very very little sugar/no sugar in my diet and was always overweight. In February I started CICO and now I get sugar in my diet and I'm almost the thinnest I've ever been.0
-
He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
Really, his claims are even ridiculous when taken as is. The inability to absorb some calories does not invalidate CICO. Else I could go and say "Olives make me retch and throw up, so I don't get the calories in them and also lose whatever was still in my stomach contents. Therefore they're negative calorie super foods. Checkmate CICOs!"0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.
Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.
Here is one.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
0 -
-
caroldavison332 wrote: »How do you know that?
Trust me... a lot of people on MFP can tell you that excess calories make you gain weight in retrospect...0 -
In the simplest of questions....IF sugar causes a person to be obese, how is everyone who eats sugar not obese? Does anyone else not see the lack of logic?
0 -
In the simplest of questions....IF sugar causes a person to be obese, how is everyone who eats sugar not obese? Does anyone else not see the lack of logic?
Lol I see it
OP did you not know that the body can make protein into glucose... so protein can make you fat too right? No, that's just calories in surplus.... c'mon now.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.
Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.
Here is one.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
nope.0
-
-
-
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.0 -
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.
Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.
Here is one.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
Is that like Coke sponsoring scientists to promote the message that people needn't drink less soda, but just exercise more?
0 -
excessive amounts of sugar contribute to the problem because sugar is calorie dense and thus contribute to over consuming energy. It is very easy to over eat "junk" foods.
I used to drink quite a bit of soda and it definitely contributed to my being overweight...because it was a *kitten* ton of calories on top of everything else I was eating...cutting back helped me lose weight because it reduced my over all energy consumption...I eat sugar still, though in less quantity...which helps regulate my energy consumption...but it's still sugar and I'm about 12% BF.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?0 -
He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »excessive amounts of sugar contribute to the problem because sugar is calorie dense and thus contribute to over consuming energy. It is very easy to over eat "junk" foods.
I used to drink quite a bit of soda and it definitely contributed to my being overweight...because it was a *kitten* ton of calories on top of everything else I was eating...cutting back helped me lose weight because it reduced my over all energy consumption...I eat sugar still, though in less quantity...which helps regulate my energy consumption...but it's still sugar and I'm about 12% BF.
I agree here
sugar dense foods are often high calorie in nature and therefore it's easy overeat and go over into excess0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions