A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Replies
-
I completely agree that it's not just "calories in, calories out" when it comes to sugar for certain people. I am not diabetic, but consuming sugar for me (even fruit) causes highs and lows in my blood sugar. Exercise-induced hypoglycemia is the worst. It also causes weight gain because of the amount of water it takes the body to process the sugar.
So, I'm not sure if your post constitutes proof, but it certainly does explain things for people with certain conditions. It's easy for others to judge who don't know your unique physiological makeup.
Thank you for the post. It will benefit those who struggle with this.0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
a lot of us have on this site. you'll find lots of people on here who have lost 100+lbs without demonizing carbs/sugars and cutting them out of their diets.
Are you one of those people?
I want people to reply individually because while many people are claiming losing weight on high sugar diets, the research is mainly obesity related. So whether or not you are/were obese while losing the weight changes how relevant your experience in terms of the CICO theory.
yes.
i eat carbs. lots of them. not as many as i did when i was getting up to my highest weight, but that's because carbs have calories, not because carbs are the devil.0 -
Bump0
-
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of).
If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w
you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.0 -
...Yes it goes on and on my friend....
Some people, started singing it not knowing what it does....
And they'll continue singing it forever just because...
This is the song that never ends...
Yes it goes on and on my friend....0 -
Lol, paleo dieters aren't true paleo dieters. I have yet to see one post on here that actually forages for vegetables and fruits (not in a supermarket) and kills their game, strips it, and preps it. Don't forget that leftovers can't be refrigerated and no supplements are allowed.
Chuck Norris owns cavemen.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is ridiculous...
The basis of paleo dieting is 'These foods make us sick. It's probably because as a species we aren't used to eating them. To avoid getting sick we will eat foods as close as we can to what we ate as we evolved to the humans we are now.'
It's not about living like a caveman, its about not becoming ill because you haven't adapted to eating grain.
Hence why the paleo diet is more based in fantasy than reality
I agree some people have got it horribly horribly wrong and people advocating it tend to make whole thing sounds ridiculous but I think the paleo diet emerged from studies that show wheat and grains are inflammatory and sugar is damaging for most people.
The whole paleo theory emerged as a way to explain the research. Not the other way around. If you look at it from that point of view it makes much more sense.
I don't actually do paleo, because I don't need a guideline to tell me what and how to eat. But I do think it makes more sense than it first appears and slamming the whole thing because we 'cavemen didn't have a fridge' is just reductive.0 -
No one is going to argue that carbs spike insulin/blood sugar or whatever...but I need someone to show what (for the majority of people, not people with medical conditions) the link between insulin and weight gain is.
Not a blog post, not a youtube video, not a book...but just a couple of actual studies that conflict the Freedman Review I mentioned earlier.
I am not even arguing at this point - I am genuinely curious to know more about this topic.0 -
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of). If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w
you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.
There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.0 -
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.
Well don't let logic get in your way then :drinker:
For me, I choose the ignore button.
I've got better things to do with my time than trying to teach a pig to sing.
are you saying i'm not being logical?
because that's laughable.0 -
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.
"Subjects consuming 1000 calorie diets..."
Only 1000 calories? EEEK!0 -
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of). If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w
you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.
There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.
how long are they on those keto diets though?
:laugh:
try running a marathon without eating any carbs for a week beforehand.0 -
...Yes it goes on and on my friend....
Some people, started singing it not knowing what it does....
And they'll continue singing it forever just because...
This is the song that never ends...
Yes it goes on and on my friend....
Mmmmmm!
I lurvv lambchop!0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
Define "loads." I don't think anyone would claim that you could eat "loads" of sugar. You have missed the whole point, which is context. I reached 263 pounds and have lost 65 since starting MFP. I eat a dessert almost every day and include it as part of my carbohydrates and fats for the day. My macro ratio is 45/25/30.0 -
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of). If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w
Since I'm not a Puritan, I don't think taking pleasure in life, food or otherwise, is a bad thing. Life is what you make it.0 -
...Yes it goes on and on my friend....
Some people, started singing it not knowing what it does....
And they'll continue singing it forever just because...
This is the song that never ends...
Yes it goes on and on my friend....
And just in case, the topic was reposted in Success Stories under a different title.0 -
Strong broscience.
repp'ed if I could!0 -
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of). If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w
you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.
There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.
how long are they on those keto diets though?
:laugh:
try running a marathon without eating any carbs for a week beforehand.
I've seen people claim to be on keto diets for at least a year. That's pretty long term. I've been fairly low carb for over 4 months, no energy problems here.
I didn't say anything about running a marathon. You said people feel sluggish, tired and lack mental acuity on low carb diets whereas I can live my normal day to day life with no energy problems and work a mentally challenging job without needing to eat lots of carbs.
Training for a marathon is a special case and yes, you need to eat carbs to do that. Not everyone has to be running marathons to be a fit and healthy person though.0 -
Sugar is just a calorie like anything else...BUT...sugar does trigger your brain differently, causing cravings....which can lead to overeating if you are not careful.0
-
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
Define "loads." I don't think anyone would claim that you could eat "loads" of sugar. You have missed the whole point, which is context. I reached 263 pounds and have lost 65 since starting MFP. I eat a dessert almost every day and include it as part of my carbohydrates and fats for the day. My macro ratio is 45/25/30.
Anyone claiming that 'a calorie is a calorie' is implying that you could eat any level of sugar and lose weight just fine.0 -
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.
I am happy to admire from afar *sigh*
I have to agree with you. People who eliminate things only proves one thing, you really didn’t like that item, or you’re always craving that thing and like depriving yourself of mouth orgasms. *true story* I know my body. That and YEARS of trial and error have gotten me where I am. I like to say that moderation is the key, but I have also made some pretty drastic changes in my eating habits. Who would have thought I would actually LIKE roasted veggies??? Not me!!! I used to think it wasn’t a meal and I would DIE if it didn’t include bread and white potatoes. I have had exactly 1 white potato in the last 2 months, and I am still kicking. Egg whites instead of the whole egg pffffttt! The yellow is the best part. I will tell you something though, that egg white is pretty damn tasty with some mushrooms and spinach and onions and salsa! Saying all that, I will also say if I am truly craving something, I eat it. I just make sure it is in my counts for the day. I also LOG LOG LOG everything that goes in my mouth. *evil grin* Yesterday I wanted cheese puffs. What did I do, I ate 2 servings of cheese puffs. It was still in my counts for the day and they were damn good!!!!! I might not lose all the weight I want to in less than a year, but it took me *way to many to say* years to put this on, and losing a pound a week is a heck of a lot better than gaining a pound a week.
ALSO---smoking makes you thin????? Have you been to Wal Mart????? *bad dum tis*0 -
bump for the youtube links. Thanks for the share.0
-
a pound is not a pound... we know this because a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat0
-
Lol, so do you eat bugs and worms too? The body is more adaptive to environmental stimuli than you may think.Lol, paleo dieters aren't true paleo dieters. I have yet to see one post on here that actually forages for vegetables and fruits (not in a supermarket) and kills their game, strips it, and preps it. Don't forget that leftovers can't be refrigerated and no supplements are allowed.
Chuck Norris owns cavemen.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is ridiculous...
The basis of paleo dieting is 'These foods make us sick. It's probably because as a species we aren't used to eating them. To avoid getting sick we will eat foods as close as we can to what we ate as we evolved to the humans we are now.'
It's not about living like a caveman, its about not becoming ill because you haven't adapted to eating grain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Bump...need to check this out as I have a huge sweet tooth!0
-
Anyone claiming that 'a calorie is a calorie' is implying that you could eat any level of sugar and lose weight just fine.
No they are not.
Energy intake can effect energy expenditure. Any claims about the energy value on the "in" side of the equation does not imply anything about the state of energy balance because you're not also making claims about the "out" side of the equation.
Diet induced thermogenesis is one example and it's factored into the out side of the equation.0 -
So perfectly correct!! Ditch the dirty sugar and white flour and more and truly enjoy your food and no more crazy cravings for deadly junk!!!0
-
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of). If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w
you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.
There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.
how long are they on those keto diets though?
:laugh:
try running a marathon without eating any carbs for a week beforehand.
I've seen people claim to be on keto diets for at least a year. That's pretty long term. I've been fairly low carb for over 4 months, no energy problems here.
I didn't say anything about running a marathon. You said people feel sluggish, tired and lack mental acuity on low carb diets whereas I can live my normal day to day life with no energy problems and work a mentally challenging job without needing to eat lots of carbs.
Training for a marathon is a special case and yes, you need to eat carbs to do that. Not everyone has to be running marathons to be a fit and healthy person though.
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences says that the human brain requires the equivalent of 130 grams of carbohydrate a day to function optimally (as a minimum). without that, you'll have trouble concentrating and mental acuity will diminish.
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-tables
i'm sure you're the exception though. :laugh:0 -
This is what my doctor told me to do when I asked her about watching my sugar macros (it is hard not to go over what MFP prescribes). She told me just to watch the carbs. However, she did say to watch refined sugars more than sugars that are in fruit. I don't know the science behind it, but I take that to mean that not all sugar is created equal...I've never tracked sugar, just my over all carbs. Never affected me.0 -
People switching to paleo style or low carb diets typically eat less calories than on higher carb / sugar regimes.
Also individuals that are insulin resistant do better than those who aren't on some regimes of low carb / low GI - horses for courses :-
"Participants were randomized for 24 weeks to either a high–glycemic load diet (60% carbohydrate, 20% protein, 20% fat, 15 g fiber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 86, and glycemic load of 116 g/1,000 kcal) or a low–glycemic load diet (40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, 30% fat, 15 g giber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 53, and glycemic load of 45 g/1,000 kcals) at 30% calorie restriction compared with baseline individual energy needs."
"Participants with high baseline INS-30 lost more weight if randomized to the low–glycemic load diet compared with the high–glycemic load diet (P < 0.05). "
"The mean target energy intake was 1,966 kcal/day, and the mean reported daily energy intake during the intervention did not differ between the two groups (2,017 kcal in the high–glycemic load diet vs. 1,972 kcal in the low–glycemic load diet, P = 0.70)."
So a calorie wasn't a calorie here, either.During the 6-month intervention period, all food was provided by the research center, and participants were requested to consume only this food and report additional foods if they were eaten
So you're making the assumption everyone was telling the truth about not sneaking foods
Here is the full study
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/28/12/2939.full
Here's studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference
An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract
Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.
Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.
Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
CONCLUSION:
This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
Including this citation that was shared
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/
Thank you for the cites. I have only began reading them, so far they do not refute Lustig et al studies; it highlights that other mechanisms are often present when disease or obesity is triggered. One unspoken condition is volume to sugar carbs consume.
I also agree with previous poster who reminds us,
"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. "0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
Define "loads." I don't think anyone would claim that you could eat "loads" of sugar. You have missed the whole point, which is context. I reached 263 pounds and have lost 65 since starting MFP. I eat a dessert almost every day and include it as part of my carbohydrates and fats for the day. My macro ratio is 45/25/30.
Anyone claiming that 'a calorie is a calorie' is implying that you could eat any level of sugar and lose weight just fine.
Is 43% of caloric intake, high?
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf0
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
- 232.5K 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