why does sugar make us fat
Options
Replies
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.
Does Chex Mix have more sugar than Doritos or other crisps/chips? Curious
You have just as much access to this information as I do, even being in the UK, but okay. Illustrated below, the amounts are comparable for Chex Mix, Doritos, and Lay's Barbecue potato chips:
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
Taken from the link above.... Read the whole thing if you are interested - but the point is that added sugar is NOT the biggest cause at all
ERS data suggest
that average daily calorie intake increased
by 24.5 percent, or about 530
calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that
24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly re-
fined grain products) contributed 9.5
percentage points; added fats and oils,
9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7
percentage points; fruits and vegetables
together, 1.5 percentage points; meats
and nuts together, 1 percentage point;
and dairy products and eggs together,
-1.5 percentage point.
Some of the observed increase in caloric
intake may be associated with the increase
in eating out. Data from USDA’s
food intake surveys show that the foodaway-from-home
sector provided 32 percent
of total food energy consumption in
1994-96, up from 18 percent in 1977-78.
The data also suggest that, when eating
out, people either eat more or eat higher
calorie foods—or both—and that this
tendency appears to be increasing.
According to the National Center for
Health Statistics, an astounding 62 percent
of adult Americans were overweight
in 2000, up from 46 percent in 1980.
Twenty-seven percent of adults were so
far overweight that they were classified
as obese (at least 30 pounds above their
healthy weight)—twice the percentage
classified as such in 1960. Alarmingly, an
upward trend in obesity is also occurring
for U.S. children.
Although multiple factors can account
for weight gain, the basic cause is an excess
of energy intake over energy expenditure.
In general, Americans’ activity
levels have not kept pace with their increase
in calorie consumption. Many
people apparently are oblivious to the
number of calories they consume. Calories
consistently rank toward the bottom
of consumer nutrition concerns
4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
We've had a whole debate thread over this particular article: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10392679/the-sugar-conspiracy/p1
If you're really interested in what people think, there's 31 pages to wade through over there.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
I think what @cmriverside is saying is, you are establishing a pattern. A pattern of what is unclear, but a pattern none the less...6 -
I've read a lot of research that indicates carbs are the main culprit - particularly refined carbs like sugar and white flour - and that the 'calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Many of you clearly disagree. Point me to the research, please.2
-
I've read a lot of research that indicates carbs are the main culprit - particularly refined carbs like sugar and white flour - and that the 'calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Many of you clearly disagree. Point me to the research, please.
There's plenty in this thread and on other threads. Do your own research.0 -
-
I've read a lot of research that indicates carbs are the main culprit - particularly refined carbs like sugar and white flour - and that the 'calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Many of you clearly disagree. Point me to the research, please.
You could start by picking up a physics textbook.
Read literature by folks like Layne Norton, Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon - they are great at debunking bad research and cite plenty of studies for you to peruse.
4 -
I've read a lot of research that indicates carbs are the main culprit - particularly refined carbs like sugar and white flour - and that the 'calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Many of you clearly disagree. Point me to the research, please.
This is my favorite:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/2 -
I've read a lot of research that indicates carbs are the main culprit - particularly refined carbs like sugar and white flour - and that the 'calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Many of you clearly disagree. Point me to the research, please.
CICO is the energy balance equation. In order to lose weight, one must consume few calories than they expend. CI = food in, CO = basal metabolic rate + non exercise activity thermogensis + thermal effect of food + thermal effect of activity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24261006
What is wrong, is peoples interpretation of CICO. Now, some believe it's over simplified because certain macronutrients increase EE (particularly protein) or medical conditions can affect the equation. Those with IR/PCOS have a potential of having lower metabolic rates compared to those without PCOS/IR. This in turn makes people suggest CICO doesn't work. Another large issue is anecdotal evidence. People suggest their only variable is macros and saw sweeping changes when they changed diets. Later we find out, they didn't track calories or an increase in consistencies also occurred.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
I think what @cmriverside is saying is, you are establishing a pattern. A pattern of what is unclear, but a pattern none the less...
There is a moderator above in this thread. If I have done anything wrong then I apologise, but I was just trying to see what people thought of the common arguments that sugar is at fault. I for a long time have believed that sugar is the cause of obesity
I didn't eat much sugar (well, added sugar) when I was getting fat (or really throughout most of my adult life), as I've always been a person who prefers savory. It is really quite possible to get fat without eating lots of sugar.
I tend to think that we consume too much sugar on average (but the number isn't at all consistent across the population), but that this is a result of the changes that led to obesity (changing eating patterns, food being so available, among other things) and not the cause. Remove the sugary items but leave everything else the same, and the results would be the same.
The one possible exception I might grant is sugary beverages in that I think for many they add calories that probably would not be replaced with food, since they aren't perceived as food by many consuming them. (But I've not had a sugary soda since around age 16, when I was thin and drank them only on occasion, and still managed to get fat, whereas some who drink them consume a perfectly reasonable number of calories, of course.) Even so, I would say that this too is driven by culture and habits and availability rather than being itself the cause, as soda was plenty available when I was a kid and yet people didn't (at least in the circles I was familiar with) drink it all day. Soda consumption is dropping, anyway.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
Fair enough. It is a topic that is discussed in probably 50 threads a week. Lustig is...how should I say?...less than reputable.
I mean, you've read hundreds of threads here.
It's always going to be the same answer. Calories in< Calories out for weight loss. Full Stop.
All the "reasons" why people get to be overweight are the same. They eat too much. Why they do it is as varied as each person.
8 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
Fair enough. It is a topic that is discussed in probably 50 threads a week. Lustig is...how should I say?...less than reputable.
I mean, you've read hundreds of threads here.
It's always going to be the same answer. Calories in< Calories out for weight loss. Full Stop.
All the "reasons" why people get to be overweight are the same. They eat too much. Why they do it is as varied as each person.
/thread3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
I think what @cmriverside is saying is, you are establishing a pattern. A pattern of what is unclear, but a pattern none the less...
There is a moderator above in this thread. If I have done anything wrong then I apologise, but I was just trying to see what people thought of the common arguments that sugar is at fault. I for a long time have believed that sugar is the cause of obesity
I didn't eat much sugar (well, added sugar) when I was getting fat (or really throughout most of my adult life), as I've always been a person who prefers savory. It is really quite possible to get fat without eating lots of sugar.
I tend to think that we consume too much sugar on average (but the number isn't at all consistent across the population), but that this is a result of the changes that led to obesity (changing eating patterns, food being so available, among other things) and not the cause. Remove the sugary items but leave everything else the same, and the results would be the same.
The one possible exception I might grant is sugary beverages in that I think for many they add calories that probably would not be replaced with food, since they aren't perceived as food by many consuming them. (But I've not had a sugary soda since around age 16, when I was thin and drank them only on occasion, and still managed to get fat, whereas some who drink them consume a perfectly reasonable number of calories, of course.) Even so, I would say that this too is driven by culture and habits and availability rather than being itself the cause, as soda was plenty available when I was a kid and yet people didn't (at least in the circles I was familiar with) drink it all day. Soda consumption is dropping, anyway.
Yeah the wheels are coming off the theory that sugar is to blame. I have never had a sweet tooth and rarely have sweets and puddings. I noticed when I changed my diet to fresh foods instead of ready meals that I started craving sweets. I didnt realise how much sugar I was unwittingly eating. Cutting out ready meals has helped me but then I also cut beers and increased my exercise so could of been a number of things that made me bigger.
The science is interesting and im trying to learn as much as I can. Thanks for your response.
Re: the bolded - you gained weight because you were in a calorie surplus, you lost weight because you were in a deficit. That's it. That's the only reason you gained/lost weight.
Perhaps cutting out beer or ready meals helped you create a calorie deficit. But it wasn't the beer or the ready meals that made you put on weight in the first place. It was an excess of calories.7 -
The echo in here is hurting my eyes.1
-
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
Fair enough. It is a topic that is discussed in probably 50 threads a week. Lustig is...how should I say?...less than reputable.
I mean, you've read hundreds of threads here.
It's always going to be the same answer. Calories in< Calories out for weight loss. Full Stop.
All the "reasons" why people get to be overweight are the same. They eat too much. Why they do it is as varied as each person.
Apologies...I dip in and out of the forums so hadnt seen the article before. Only really learned about cico since I came here lol. Good luck with your goals
Not a reflection on you personally, but statements like this are why I'm convinced nutrition education is pitiful, sorely lacking, and such a big factor in the obesity epidemic.5 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
Fair enough. It is a topic that is discussed in probably 50 threads a week. Lustig is...how should I say?...less than reputable.
I mean, you've read hundreds of threads here.
It's always going to be the same answer. Calories in< Calories out for weight loss. Full Stop.
All the "reasons" why people get to be overweight are the same. They eat too much. Why they do it is as varied as each person.
Apologies...I dip in and out of the forums so hadnt seen the article before. Only really learned about cico since I came here lol. Good luck with your goals
Not a reflection on you personally, but statements like this are why I'm convinced nutrition education is pitiful, sorely lacking, and such a big factor in the obesity epidemic.
No thats cool, fair point. I have enough humility to know I knew nothing in the past. Running round thinking beer, kebabs and ciggies were making me fat. Only started losing weight properly when I came on here. Education is not good and the message isnt clear and then the message is also ignored anyway. You have to want the knowledge
Indeed. Imagine how bad business would be for the fitness, food and pharmaceutical industry if it were otherwise...4 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jake, you spend a lot of time being "devil's advocate." Not just in this thread, but in general.
Why not find a more productive use for your time than trying to create conflict, then saying, "Just kidding, don't really feel that way."
Feels more like trolling to me.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
You're looking through a black and white lense. Sugar was "evil" even back then. Of course high sugar foods contributed, so did high fat foods, so did meats. You shouldn't be looking at any single macronutrient or food item as a culprit, you need to look at it as a symptom. The world overall is eating more sugar. What does it mean? You look at other foods and notice the world overall is eating more of almost everything. This means the world overall is eating more calories. Combine that with reduced activity, and the math will magically click. No, I don't think the low fat craze contributed to the high obesity rate anymore than the low carb craze will contribute to the high obesity rates in the future. If you keep trying to single out nutrients or foods you can reach pretty funny conclusions, such as "vegetables cause obesity" because veetable consumption has increased over the years.
Just to be clear - I read this article earlier today which many of you will know of https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I wasn't stating my opinion - I was being a bit 'devils advocate' and asking what the smart people here would argue to various points that people generally throw about. I don't really know the cause hence my reading and asking here. I'm not demonsing food or finding a culprit - finding what people think mate
I have invoked a discussion based on something I read. Haven't argued with anyone or discredited any persons views
Fair enough. It is a topic that is discussed in probably 50 threads a week. Lustig is...how should I say?...less than reputable.
I mean, you've read hundreds of threads here.
It's always going to be the same answer. Calories in< Calories out for weight loss. Full Stop.
All the "reasons" why people get to be overweight are the same. They eat too much. Why they do it is as varied as each person.
Apologies...I dip in and out of the forums so hadnt seen the article before. Only really learned about cico since I came here lol. Good luck with your goals
Not a reflection on you personally, but statements like this are why I'm convinced nutrition education is pitiful, sorely lacking, and such a big factor in the obesity epidemic.
Education is fine, but it's more boring than the latest clickbait title about sugar/carbs/fat/red meat/saturated fat.....etc. It's not the lack of information that is to blame, it's the information overload. People tend to get attached to fallacious beliefs about food, metabolism and body shape combined with an overall lack of willingness to make the sacrifices needed to control their weight.
Sugar is not really that hard to understand.. I mean you could very easily come to a conclusion about it without needing to go down the rabbit hole of book selling money grabbers or even the slightest bit of science. All you need is a healthy dose of common sense. Most sweets have a lot of fat and/or not a lot of moisture, making them an ideal low satiety low volume calorie bomb, so even if they do replace a comparable portion of other foods, the calorie difference would still be huge. For example, if you replace 1.5 oz of the usual medium calorie density chow with 2 peanut butter cups you still end up with more than twice the the calories of the food replaced. Sweet drinks are even worse. They are replacing water, so the increase in calories from beverages that replaced water would be 100%.0 -
I've read a lot of research that indicates carbs are the main culprit - particularly refined carbs like sugar and white flour - and that the 'calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Many of you clearly disagree. Point me to the research, please.
This isn't the debate forum or a debate thread, so there's really no burden of proof on any of us.
The simple fact that any metabolic ward study out there that carefully controls intake and shows weight loss among participants proves the calories in/calories out model.
So do the weight loss results of several participants in this thread, myself included.
I will never understand how the people like you who deny CICO think people who eat carbohydrates in quantity manage to lose weight and keep it off. It's like you pretend we don't exist so you can keep clinging to your theory.
How do you explain me losing weight while eating 200 grams of carbs a day, which amounts to about 50% of my total calories? Those carbs include sugar on kettle corn. Every night.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions