Are All Calorie Sources the Same?

Options
245

Replies

  • RodaRose
    RodaRose Posts: 9,562 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    The Glycemic Index is mostly BS -- the science is iffy. The studies can not be replicated to individuals.
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/1/290S.full
    Thus, to conclude that high-GI diets result in diabetes, it must first be definitively shown that these diets result in insulin resistance that in turn increases the insulin demand to such an extent that it eventually overwhelms and exhausts the pancreas. No such evidence exists, as noted previously. In fact, data from countries whose populations ingest high-carbohydrate diets and thus have an increased insulin demand, show a generally lower incidence of diabetes.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    RichardD83 wrote: »
    Why doesn't it take into account the glycemic index.

    Even those who think "glycemic index" is important agree that: (1) it's really glycemic load (GI isn't adjusted for normal serving, so suggests that carrots are a bad thing to eat); and (2) everything you eat together must be taken into account to determine the GL of a meal. So the GL/GI of a potato is irrelevant if you normally eat it with steak, butter, and broccoli (as many do--far more than eat it plain, I'd guess).

    Also, GI is usually used (other than for diabetics) to estimate satiety, and it turns out a high GL potato is actually really good for satiety for the average person and that it gets worse when you add butter or fry it in fat (thereby lowering its GL/GI).

    So there are problems with GI as a measure.

    On the other hand, for carbs specifically, lower GI tends to correlate with more micronutrients and more fiber, so there likely is a positive to eating lower GI carbs (although not a lower GI diet -- i.e., HF and LC) in general for health. But that's not actually because the GI matters -- it's because fiber and micros are good. In other words, eating high GL potatoes a lot tends to compare negatively to eating lots of lower GL brussels sprouts and steel cut oats and berries. But on the other hand, eating lots of high GL plain roasted potatoes compares positively to eating (ironically) lower GL/GI chips or fries. Almost all the negative correlation between health/obesity and potatoes is removed if one controls for excessive consumption of chips and fries. The rest would (I would bet my house) be removed if one controlled for overall vegetable consumption (lots of people seem to assume potatoes sub for non starchy veg, when they do not, despite being perfectly healthful foods in themselves).
    We all know how that works I'm sure. If I'm dumping lots of sugar in my blood it will be laid down as fat.

    Apparently not, as you can't add net fat at a deficit and WILL gain net fat at a surplus, even if you avoid carbs/sugar. I gained my weight eating a moderate fat, moderate carb diet (I never was scared of fat or much of a carb fanatic) and I lost doing the same. Also, sugar will first be stored as glycogen, and only then be stored as fat if your glycogen stores are full, which is unlikely on a deficit and even if it happened would be made up for by more fat being burned later, since you can't magically make you run on less energy than you burn.

    Fat can actually be stored as fat more easily than carbs. But still it will not be if you are not at an excess, so if you are someone for whom it turns out that you can keep a deficit more easily by doing HFLC (that's not the case for everyone, probably not the case for most after a short period of time), then definitely consider doing that. MFP lets YOU make that choice.
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    HarperWinterberry wrote: »
    No, not all calories are the same. If you got all of your daily calories from table sugar and drank nothing else but water, it would kill you.

    Who does that?
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    randomtai wrote: »
    HarperWinterberry wrote: »
    No, not all calories are the same. If you got all of your daily calories from table sugar and drank nothing else but water, it would kill you.

    Who does that?

    Nobody
  • BillMcKay1
    BillMcKay1 Posts: 315 Member
    Options
    From my personal experience, the bitter truth about sugar, (and fat to some extent) is that it is calorically dense but non-filling. Put 4oz of sugar on a scale and eat that, 439 calories (and probably a sick stomach!) and see how full you feel.

    Put 4oz of grilled boneless skinless chicken breast on the scale 184 calories, add in 1/3 cup cooked brown rice, 2c of leafy greens 1 med tomato and some vinegar s&P 265 total kcal. Eat that and see how full you feel.

    Most people , myself included, get obese from eating too much, period. Sugar exacerbates the problem because it adds the calories so fast and it does not satiate the appetite.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    HarperWinterberry wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    And having just fat or just protein would kill you too.
    And eating nothing at all kills you even faster.

    Actually, this is false. If all you have is water and sugar to survive, you will live longer if you just drink the water. The sugar will speed up the process of your death.

    unlikely. You wouldn't get any fuel at all to support your organs, etc from water where you do from sugar
  • SugarySweetheart
    SugarySweetheart Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    RichardD83 wrote: »
    We've probably all seen 'Sugar the bitter truth' and so you know how the body treats sugar and alcohol in the same way, as a poison. And they both cause direct weight gain.

    Why doesn't my fitness pal do the same?

    I've been hitting 2000 calories a day but not lost weight. I thought I could trust my fitness pal. Why doesn't it take into account the glycemic index. We all know how that works I'm sure. If I'm dumping lots of sugar in my blood it will be laid down as fat. So a calorie is not just a calorie. Shouldn't my fitness pal take this into account?

    I'm not sure I can trust this app

    It's not the APP... could it be YOU? If you have the knowledge that sugar turns into fat, then why eat "sugar" in processed carbs, alcohol or fruit with high sugar content??

    Perhaps you didn't have this knowledge before but you have it now so make proper choices.. you can't blame an app for your own weight loss or gain.
  • zoeysasha37
    zoeysasha37 Posts: 7,088 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    So full of disinformation I don't even know where to start. Sugar is not a poison like alcohol and is not treated the same way by the body. Basic physiology proves that to be completely false. Neither sugar nor alcohol "cause direct weight gain", that is also false. Weight gain is caused by a calorie intake in excess of your output.

    As far as glycemic index, it's only a concern when eating a certain food in isolation. The GI is modulated when eaten with other, lower GI foods. And "dumping a lot of sugar in your blood" will result in fat gain only if you're in a caloric surplus. Obviously we don't "all know how that works", because that's not how it works.

    It may be better to stop watching bogus propaganda/scaremongering videos and studying basic nutrition and physiology. Lustig is a known crackpot who preaches junk science.

    The answer to the question in your thread title (Are all calorie sources the same?) is that speaking purely in terms of weight loss, they are. Speaking in terms of weight loss combined with body composition, performance and overall health, they are not.

    This

Categories