A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.

TheGymGypsy

All things in moderation, that's all I have to say about this.

Barry7879

Does anyone know of any scientific papers that refute or de-bunk the bio-chemistry in Prof Lutwig's explanation of the mechanism behind the metabolism of Fructose by the liver?

Seems to be an incredibly complex issue and probably requires decades of study in medicine, endocrinology and bio-chemistry to make any meaningful contribution I would think.

Of course we must all find our way through the maze of studies and advice - much of it conflicting. No doubt it's a multi-layered problem - political, social, behavioural.

Personally I use a mixture of reading the science and seeing how it works for me. The science seems to be reaching a consensus that Fructose in excess (beyond fibrous fruit) leads to excessive fat storage, Metabolic Syndrome and Type II Diabetes. I have no doubt some of us would be more affected by this than others - if you can enjoy your daily kit kat bar, that's great for you - I'm happy for you. My personal (anecdotal) experience is the weight bounced back on as soon as I re-introduced sweet treats - but my whole family are sugar junkies so we are probably on the sensitive side of the scale.

However, when you consider that our bodies in their present state haven't evolved significantly for at least 30,000 years and how much new 'food' we've introduced like sugar - it seems a rational argument that we simply haven't had time to adapt to these and they therefore present as toxins in significant quantities.

ngyoung

Guys I'm not saying the proof is with me - it's in the links I left. Checkout Professor Lutwig's videos - he will explain the biochemistry of how fructose is directed to the liver to be metabolized and this results in fat storage whereas glucose can be metabolized by any cells / organs in the body.

Watch Sugar: The bitter truth on You Tube please before commenting.

Sugar (and simple carbs like bread) is driving insulin is driving fat storage is the message. We are not fat because we are eating more, we are eating more because we are getting fat. The paradigm needs to be flipped.

Google Gary Taubes - an award winning science journalist who's followed the complete history of the fat versus sugar studies going back over 100 years.

Checkout Pure, White and Deadly by Professor John Yudkin

Regards and best wishes to all

LOLstig and Taubes lmao

Uh oh, protein is also insulinogenic, so maybe that's driving insulin and is driving fat storage!

Yes some people do gain weight eating too high a ratio of protein. It is usually after they already have a very insulin resistant, damaged metabolism. For most though no that isn't their issue it is eating a diet high in processed carb rich low fiber junk that spikes your blood sugar and keeps your pancreas pumping out insulin.

geebusuk

Have a start here, which links references:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

BrainyBurro

While I agree with you, this topic has been hotly debated ad nauseum on mfp and any other nutrition related forum.

Even the so called experts do not agree. This being the case, I believe the weight/health conscious world falls into one of 2 camps. Those that are sensitive to sugars and starches and those who are not.

You know well which one of these groups you fall into and if you don't, eventually you will. This is because it will either work for you or not.

If limiting starches and sugars does not affect you, it's a bunch of broscience....and since this is your experience, it's quite valid.

However, if you are unfortunate enough to fall into the camp of sugars and starches producing a whole host of problems resulting in serious imbalances, well, it just plain sucks. It also adds a lot of resentment for the folks who have no sugar/starch issues because it's as if this particular person's experience is invalid.

Bottom line is, even though sugars and starches are not for me, I surely wish that people would concede that both sides of the equation are valid. Once armed with the information it's up to you to you to figure out what will work for you.

My personal pov is that i wish i took seriously all the warnings the OP was talking about instead of calling bs because it sounded like a conspiracy theory.

Pretty much was going to say thing. So much people get up in arms because "Well, this wasn't *my* experience, therefore yours must be invalid!", and then find a bunch of links backing up their preferred "diets." It's not hard to find a bunch of support (or, "support") for your choice because there's SO MUCH out there, on all sides of the equation.

I realize the whole point of these forums is to discuss, sometimes debate (although it frequently isn't a proper debate, but rather snarky or sometimes downright rude replies). But at what point do people just give up, and say, eff it all, I'll just do my own thing, and you do your own thing?

Unless you enjoy the arguing, then by all means, have at it!

it's never valid to allow faulty assumptions/conclusions to go unchallenged. that's the underlying principle of science. so if you think weight loss and nutrition is voodoo and magic, then i suppose you can adopt the mantra that "what works for one person might not work for another". i personally cannot accept that, because it's not true. the OP made assertions that need to be challenged, and many MFP members are rightly challenging them.

TeachTheGirl

In for the sugar.

Acg67

Have you got any scientific papers that de-bunk what Lutwig is saying about Fructose? I'd love to read them if you have. LOL

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/988127-scientific-review-of-lolstig-s-fat-chance

BrainyBurro

Guys I'm not saying the proof is with me - it's in the links I left. Checkout Professor Lutwig's videos - he will explain the biochemistry of how fructose is directed to the liver to be metabolized and this results in fat storage whereas glucose can be metabolized by any cells / organs in the body.

Watch Sugar: The bitter truth on You Tube please before commenting.

Sugar (and simple carbs like bread) is driving insulin is driving fat storage is the message. We are not fat because we are eating more, we are eating more because we are getting fat. The paradigm needs to be flipped.

Google Gary Taubes - an award winning science journalist who's followed the complete history of the fat versus sugar studies going back over 100 years.

Checkout Pure, White and Deadly by Professor John Yudkin

Regards and best wishes to all

LOLstig and Taubes lmao

Uh oh, protein is also insulinogenic, so maybe that's driving insulin and is driving fat storage!

Yes some people do gain weight eating too high a ratio of protein. It is usually after they already have a very insulin resistant, damaged metabolism. For most though no that isn't their issue it is eating a diet high in processed carb rich low fiber junk that spikes your blood sugar and keeps your pancreas pumping out insulin.

baloney.

you get fat by eating too many calories. THAT'S THE REASON. whether the calories are fats, proteins, or carbs matters very, very little (except for those with real medically diagnosed issues).

thisismeraw

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients. Just because you're not affected at age 30 doesn't mean by 55 you won't see some detrimental effects.

If you are getting all your nutrients and eating sugar you will only gain weight if you are eating more than your TDEE. You cannot and will not gain fat if you are eating at a calorie deficit. Sugar will not cause you to gain fat weight alone.

You can be healthy and consume sugar. Sure, don't be eating refined and added sugar all day everyday however some sugar will not hurt you.

dieselbyte

I think everyone is different. I think there are a LOT of people who are very sensitive to sugar. I am. And I believe that all calories are NOT equal across the board. Some people don't seem to be affected, while some are greatly affected. Do I have scientific proof and/or am I a scientist? No. But I am hypoglycemic and get "addicted" to sugar if I just let myself go unchecked, then I get in a really bad place where I will blackout and have a lot of other health issues. No, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients. Just because you're not affected at age 30 doesn't mean by 55 you won't see some detrimental effects.

States she isn't a scientist and has no scientific proof... proceeds to give science-like argument!

All in good fun, but your post is wrong on so many levels. Your hypoglycemia and lack of self control around sweets is a health issue that is specific to you. It is by no means a scientific commentary on how the human body works. I eat sugar on a daily basis. I am very macro and micro nutrient efficient. I have not gained weight.

I also have hypoglycemia. It's not that I have a lack of controll around sugar, but when my sugar gets low, I do crave the stuff. Like "I would kill you for that chocolate bar you just chewed up" craving. That being said, I have learned to somewhat controll my hypoblycemia by eating a banana or a greek yogurt with some pb2 when I feel this attack coming on. Just saying, that being hypoglycemic DOES make your mind think you body NEEDS sugar. If my sugar level drops, I get really *itchy, see spots, get dizzy, pass out. Usually in that order. You know it's bad when your daughter tells you, "mom, eat something like now!" Luckily I have found a lifestyle change that is working for me, not everyone is that lucky. And I really said all of that just to say I would love touchin your muscles

---

LOL!! If my girlfriend approves, you can touch all you want!

In all seriousness though, I wasn't trying to invalidate or make slight of real health issues. Needing sugar because your levels are getting too low is one thing. Being "addicted" is another. Like you, I know other's with hypoglycemia who have a great handle on it and have not only changed, but improved their lifestyle. My concern is with the OP and others, who use their own experience as proof of "something" rational, but fail to realize the irrational nature of their conclusion. Unless there is a specific health issue, one does not need to eliminate anything from their diet for weight loss purposes. And certainly, having sugar present in one's diet doesn't mean that they are nurtrient deficient if the aren't gaining weight. That's like saying most smokers are skinny, so you should smoke to lose weight.

WendyTerry420

Have you got any scientific papers that de-bunk what Lutwig is saying about Fructose? I'd love to read them if you have. LOL

Several people have posted them. These two specifically debunk Lutwig/Lustig/Taubes:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

EvilFeevil

No.

:laugh:

BrianSharpe

Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.

Ignoring? Low carb/low sugar has been all the rage for years now. The same red herring that fat was in the past.

yep!

Diet Pepsi debuted in 1964.

Diet Coke debuted in 1982.

the food/beverage industry has long been aware that it is profitable to offer low sugar/low carb products.

Wow! I didn't realize that Diet Pepsi was first. And that it took so long for Coke to introduce a competitive product. Kind of surprising considering that Coke dominates Pepsi in the market place.

A little OT but Coke was first in 1963 with a product called Tab (for some reason their marketing types wanted to differentiate the "diet" product from coke) Coke's second offering (in 1966) was Fresca........and I must be getting really old if I remember this stuff......

SanyaIE

Having said that, I'm slowly beginning to believe that depending on where the calories are coming from, it will have an impact on our weight. For exampleeeeee, if the calories are coming from candy, that causes our insulin levels to become higher in our blood (from my understanding, don't quote me on this!) so that causes fat to be stored much easier.

This is - more or less - my understanding of it as well. Will implement the lower intake of sugar (eg no sugar at all except one that is in real food eg fruit or veggies etc) for few months and see what happens.

OneDimSim

OP glad you posted this...it dovetails with a documentary i watched this weekend called "Fat Head":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evcNPfZlrZs

Really good Stuff!!!

Barry7879

Have you got any scientific papers that de-bunk what Lutwig is saying about Fructose? I'd love to read them if you have. LOL

Several people have posted them. These two specifically debunk Lutwig/Lustig/Taubes:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Thank you - I'll read those.

IronPhyllida

o, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients.

Love it!!!

This made me spit laugh

:noway::happy: :laugh: :laugh:
In for the funny gifs!

tedrickp

Have there been more recent studies done that link insulin to weight loss though?

Like I keep seeing candy/sugar spikes your insulin levels so it must be bad...but from my own (albeit not thorough) research it seems liek Insulin may be another one of those "red herrings"...at least for the majority of the population. Obviously there are medical reasons insulin is bad for some people's weight loss.

I can't find this review online, but I have a book in front of me that mentions a M.R. Freedman Review from Obesity Research (March 2001). A couple interesting points...

"Subjects consuming 1000 calorie diets containing 15 percent carbs had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming the same calories but 45% carbohydrates. Yet there was no difference in weight loss between the two groups. Another study in the review was cited where researchers studied 10 obese patients who were fed low cal (1,500 calories) liquid formula diets containing either 72% or 0% carbs for four weeks before switching. A significant reduction in insulin levels was noted for the subjects consuming the 0% carb formula. Refeeding the high carb formula resulted in a marked increase in insulin. However patients lost .75-2kg a week, irrespective of caloric distribution"

Book: Should I Eat The Yolk by Jamie Hale

Now that was 12 years ago so if there are new studies that show the opposite - could someone link me. I am generally curious about this topic. Also what medical reasons require one to worry about insulin (outside of diabetes). I am not asking to prove anything wrong - I am generally curious about this subject, and want to learn more.

SanyaIE

What annoys me is people who don't calorie count but eat "healthily" and refuse to accept that sugar IS sugar and that there aren't good and bad sugars. I don't mean that THEY annoy me. It's the food manufacturers claiming hteir product is so damn healthy when it is FULL of sugar and calories. My step daughter guzzles "Naked Juice" on top of a normal diet becuase it is marketed as a health drink even though with 29g of sugar in one small bottle, she might as well be eating donuts. If you're calorie counting it doesn;t matter much as Calories in Vs Out will prevail... but very dangerous if not.

I couldn't agree more with this so will just "sign it"

mahanaibu

A lot of people are oversimplifying here. Of course you can lose weight eating sugar. You can lose weight eating anything. But most people will get better weight loss (and better satiety) from a diet that is lower in processed carbs, lower on the glycemic index, an dthat of course includes (but is not limited to) table sugar. It means that that the faster your body can access the sugars in the food and turn them to glucose, the more of a problem you'll have. That's why steel-cut oats are so much better for you than instant oatmeal,

Here's the relevant study:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-dieting-not-all-calo

Of course, the study is on a limited population, but there's no particularly good reason to think it's different for others, and studies continue to back up its findings. The study is gold-standard: random assignment, and they controlled what the subjects ate.