A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Replies
-
I love how people say that someone's personal experience doesn't mean anything. What is scientific "proof"? Where do you think all those warnings come from on pharmaceuticals products (on any products, for that matter)? From individual experiences. A bunch of individual experiences are tallied up to provide "proof". My experience may not be everyone else's experiences, but it's still my experience/ reality. Some people need to lose the God complex.0
-
I love how people say that someone's personal experience doesn't mean anything. What is scientific "proof"? Where do you think all those warnings come from on pharmaceuticals products (on any products, for that matter)? From individual experiences. A bunch of individual experiences are tallied up to provide "proof". My experience may not be everyone else's experiences, but it's still my experience/ reality. Some people need to lose the God complex.
In this case, the OP is presenting an argument that isn't logically sound.0 -
I love how people say that someone's personal experience doesn't mean anything. What is scientific "proof"? Where do you think all those warnings come from on pharmaceuticals products (on any products, for that matter)? From individual experiences. A bunch of individual experiences are tallied up to provide "proof". My experience may not be everyone else's experiences, but it's still my experience/ reality. Some people need to lose the God complex.
Anecodotal evidence is good enough in some cases. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, in addition to scientific studies, that prove you can be healthy and fit while consuming moderate amounts of sugar.0 -
If you have insulin resistance, it's best to avoid it. I happen to have had gestational diabetes twice and have had on and off problems with insulin resistance, so I have changed my diet and have eliminated refined carbs and sugar. If you want to eat that stuff, fine. However, I don't think it's a good idea to regularly consume empty calories.0
-
a pound is not a pound... we know this because a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat
:noway: as in a pound of feathers vs a pound of bricks?
0 -
I would agree that eating way too much sugar can be very hard on your body (insulin levels, etc), however I strongly disagree that it is the root of all evil. In fact your body requires sugar to live. If you get rid of it and all of its sources, you die.
I also feel that eating sugar in moderation (and even to indulgence once in a while) will not derail the weight loss of anyone who does not already have problems with insulin levels or other sugar-related hormones. My anecdote is that I lost 106lbs in 1 1/2yrs and I ate a Gigi's cupcake at least once a month and some kind of small sweet after dinner every single night. And most weeks that I didn't have a cupcake, I indulged in some sort of other treat, like an ice cream cone. You have to remember that part of weight loss is psychological also. Everyone is different and some people do better when they are still allowed to indulge once in a while as long as they are sticking with their plan overall.0 -
Where is proof?
I'll keep the sugar...and my abzzz
Yep - I was not seeing any proof there either.0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/774.long
There is some truth to what the OP is saying but it's still being debated in the scientific community. Link to a real scientific study on frutose above.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?
.
250lbs.
316lbs. I have lost over 100 and kept it off for 3 years. I'm still working on the last 50 and making progress. Still eating treats on a regular basis.0 -
Posting for later viewing!
I recently read a book called, "The End of Overeating" that was full of science and research about the 60-70% of the population who is prone to overeat on "trigger" foods -- those full of sugar, fat, and salt. Sugar, by far is the worst for you. My next book is "Breaking the Sugar Addiction." Anyone else read good books on sugar or fast food addiction?0 -
I love how people say that someone's personal experience doesn't mean anything. What is scientific "proof"? Where do you think all those warnings come from on pharmaceuticals products (on any products, for that matter)? From individual experiences. A bunch of individual experiences are tallied up to provide "proof". My experience may not be everyone else's experiences, but it's still my experience/ reality. Some people need to lose the God complex.
This is an honest question and not a dig: Have you done research in a field where the data is human experience and not some type of physical measurement?
If you have, then you know that humans are ridiculously susceptible to the power of suggestion. Even if we have not been influenced by media, etc, then we are recounting memories that are notoriously inaccurate and are colored by our own beliefs whether they are correct or not. This is why this kind of research requires a very large sample size and an objective way to record the evidence so the researchers' own bias does not come into play.
An individual's experience may not be reality. That's the point. If I step on a rock and lightning hits a nearby tree, does that mean that stepping on the rock made the lightning hit the tree even if I believe that it did? No. And that's the problem of relying on anecdotal evidence.0 -
Where is proof?
I'll keep the sugar...and my abzzz
Yep - I was not seeing any proof there either.
All the proof I need is in my glucometer and scale, but since n=1, I have nothing valid to add apparently, but it's ok, cause your mileage may vary.:drinker:0 -
I tell you what OP... if you really want to prove to us that sugar is the problem, then continue your diet as you do, but eat 1,000 calories above maintenance. Then, report back to us your results.
I don't think you've understood the point about calories. What these guys are saying (Lustig) is that if you eat say 2000 a day with high GI carb loading, the increased insulin levels might cause say 500 of those to get stored into fat rather than being burned. So you only have 1500 a day available to your muscles and organs. So you feel hungry, so you eat more.. This is what they mean about we are eating more because we are getting fat and not vice versa. The First Law of Thermodynamics is intact (energy is constant in a closed system - i.e. energy balance) but it doesn't tell us anything about causation. This biochemical model of fat storage does.
It would be interesting to do a study where one ate say 2000 calories of real food in one test group and another group also ate 2000 calories but had 1000 cals replaced by sugar and bread etc and see how that pans out over a year or two. I doubt it could every be controlled accurately or even if it's ethical but I suspect that group 2 would have higher body fat % and experience more hunger pangs. 1000 cals a day from simple carbs is not excessive either - try a large coke and large fries at Macky Ds.
Clearly a calorie is not a calorie even if you ignore metabolism problems with Fructose. Sugar provides ZERO nutrients. 100 cals of ANY other food is ALWAYS better for you than 100 cals of sugar because every other food contains at least some other nutrient.
I know you can lose weight on sugar - I lost 50lbs while calorie counting and keeping my sweet treats / cheats. There are twinkie diets and all sorts of low nutrient diets you can lose weight on. We are bit more enlightened here I hope.
If I had dropped the treats and replaced it with say protein, maybe my body fat % wouldn't still be 20% and I wouldn't have lost some muscle along with the fat? I'm pretty sure any fitness coach would say that would have been better. We are all learning I guess.
We are in the business of asking how do we lose the fat (not the weight) off our bodies whilst feeling good and healthy and not suffering from hunger and cravings. I think the evidence shows that sugar is a major obstacle to those objectives. If it turns out that sugar is the elixir of life and a fantastic fat burning food, I'll be more than happy to pull out the kit kat chunkies again I assure you :-)0 -
I am dying to know how this is working for you- consider yourself blessed. At 1680 calories a day and 5 days of 1 hour or more workouts I have lost only 45 in 19 months and am still a long way from maintenance. I think some food does hinder weight loss. I know FOR ME alcohol does so I have to limit it.Here we go again!
I don't think I would call this 'proof' - your experience is anecdotal. It's no more proof than my personal experiences. I ate about 2200 calories a day - about 50% carbs, 30% fat and 20% protein. I ate sugar and white flour foods every single day. I lost about 66 pounds (30 kg) and have now kept it off for over a year and a half. On top of that, I'm female, I'm not doing anything high energy 3-4 hours a day, and I'm in my 40s. If sugar is the devil, why was losing so easy and why has maintenance gone so smoothly?
Furthermore, there are other experts in medicine and dietetics that think Professor Lustig is a bit off base. Yes... too much sugar can be a problem, but really the problem is more likely too much of everything.
I think it's great that Paleo works for you. Really... I am. But it's not the only way.
This was a good article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/0 -
You'd hope they'll generally try and find multiple occurances at least.Where do you think all those warnings come from on pharmaceuticals products (on any products, for that matter)?
But yes, I think most who've thought about it would realise that it's quite possible that a lot of those 'side effects' were nothing to do with the drug it's self, but got thrown in to prevent law suits on the off chance they were.
Similarly, most people expect that 98% of the side affects won't happen to them at all.0 -
I love how people say that someone's personal experience doesn't mean anything. What is scientific "proof"? Where do you think all those warnings come from on pharmaceuticals products (on any products, for that matter)? From individual experiences. A bunch of individual experiences are tallied up to provide "proof". My experience may not be everyone else's experiences, but it's still my experience/ reality. Some people need to lose the God complex.
In this case, the OP is presenting an argument that isn't logically sound.
I'll say it again - the proof is not contained in what I said. I'm not a bio-chemist. The proof I was referring to is with Lutwig's presentations. Apologies if that wasn't apparent. Regards.0 -
I tell you what OP... if you really want to prove to us that sugar is the problem, then continue your diet as you do, but eat 1,000 calories above maintenance. Then, report back to us your results.
I don't think you've understood the point about calories. What these guys are saying (Lustig) is that if you eat say 2000 a day with high GI carb loading, the increased insulin levels might cause say 500 of those to get stored into fat rather than being burned. So you only have 1500 a day available to your muscles and organs. So you feel hungry, so you eat more.. This is what they mean about we are eating more because we are getting fat and not vice versa. The First Law of Thermodynamics is intact (energy is constant in a closed system - i.e. energy balance) but it doesn't tell us anything about causation. This biochemical model of fat storage does.
It would be interesting to do a study where one ate say 2000 calories of real food in one test group and another group also ate 2000 calories but had 1000 cals replaced by sugar and bread etc and see how that pans out over a year or two. I doubt it could every be controlled accurately or even if it's ethical but I suspect that group 2 would have higher body fat % and experience more hunger pangs. 1000 cals a day from simple carbs is not excessive either - try a large coke and large fries at Macky Ds.
Clearly a calorie is not a calorie even if you ignore metabolism problems with Fructose. Sugar provides ZERO nutrients. 100 cals of ANY other food is ALWAYS better for you than 100 cals of sugar because every other food contains at least some other nutrient.
I know you can lose weight on sugar - I lost 50lbs while calorie counting and keeping my sweet treats / cheats. There are twinkie diets and all sorts of low nutrient diets you can lose weight on. We are bit more enlightened here I hope.
If I had dropped the treats and replaced it with say protein, maybe my body fat % wouldn't still be 20% and I wouldn't have lost some muscle along with the fat? I'm pretty sure any fitness coach would say that would have been better. We are all learning I guess.
We are in the business of asking how do we lose the fat (not the weight) off our bodies whilst feeling good and healthy and not suffering from hunger and cravings. I think the evidence shows that sugar is a major obstacle to those objectives. If it turns out that sugar is the elixir of life and a fantastic fat burning food, I'll be more than happy to pull out the kit kat chunkies again I assure you :-)
This will be the third time I post this, since you seem to gloss over it, 43% of caloric intake as sucrose or 21.5% of intake as fructose, oh noes!
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
.
250lbs.
316lbs. I have lost over 100 and kept it off for 3 years. I'm still working on the last 50 and making progress. Still eating treats on a regular basis.
295 at heaviest, 182 now. I'm usually 'over' on sugar.
Good luck to any who has had success restricting their sugar, I'll stick to watching calories.0 -
I tell you what OP... if you really want to prove to us that sugar is the problem, then continue your diet as you do, but eat 1,000 calories above maintenance. Then, report back to us your results.
I don't think you've understood the point about calories. What these guys are saying (Lustig) is that if you eat say 2000 a day with high GI carb loading, the increased insulin levels might cause say 500 of those to get stored into fat rather than being burned. So you only have 1500 a day available to your muscles and organs. So you feel hungry, so you eat more.. This is what they mean about we are eating more because we are getting fat and not vice versa. The First Law of Thermodynamics is intact (energy is constant in a closed system - i.e. energy balance) but it doesn't tell us anything about causation. This biochemical model of fat storage does.
It would be interesting to do a study where one ate say 2000 calories of real food in one test group and another group also ate 2000 calories but had 1000 cals replaced by sugar and bread etc and see how that pans out over a year or two. I doubt it could every be controlled accurately or even if it's ethical but I suspect that group 2 would have higher body fat % and experience more hunger pangs. 1000 cals a day from simple carbs is not excessive either - try a large coke and large fries at Macky Ds.
Clearly a calorie is not a calorie even if you ignore metabolism problems with Fructose. Sugar provides ZERO nutrients. 100 cals of ANY other food is ALWAYS better for you than 100 cals of sugar because every other food contains at least some other nutrient.
I know you can lose weight on sugar - I lost 50lbs while calorie counting and keeping my sweet treats / cheats. There are twinkie diets and all sorts of low nutrient diets you can lose weight on. We are bit more enlightened here I hope.
If I had dropped the treats and replaced it with say protein, maybe my body fat % wouldn't still be 20% and I wouldn't have lost some muscle along with the fat? I'm pretty sure any fitness coach would say that would have been better. We are all learning I guess.
We are in the business of asking how do we lose the fat (not the weight) off our bodies whilst feeling good and healthy and not suffering from hunger and cravings. I think the evidence shows that sugar is a major obstacle to those objectives. If it turns out that sugar is the elixir of life and a fantastic fat burning food, I'll be more than happy to pull out the kit kat chunkies again I assure you :-)
This will be the third time I post this, since you seem to gloss over it, 43% of caloric intake as sucrose or 21.5% of intake as fructose, oh noes!
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
"Three major conclusions can be drawn from this study. First,
a high intake of sucrose from a low-fat, hypoenergetic diet did
not adversely affect weight loss or other metabolic indexes
when compared with an isoenergetic diet in which sucrose was
replaced by starches and aspartame. Both diet groups showed
equal significant reductions in weight, percentage body fat,"
What if the sucrose was replaced with something other than starch which is something that's also high GI? I don't know - might have that changed the results? Sucrose is not the highest GI food by any means. But it is the highest GI food with zero nutrients right?
It certainly seems to be a minefield on the science side - you have to look carefully for any political agendas / profiteering on the part of the researchers and it's questionable whether a layman like me without a degree in statistical analysis is even able to form a coherent interpretation of the data.
I just remember being a kid in the 1970s and very few people were fat - no-one was obese. I remember Dad taking me to McDonalds around age 10 and the explosion of junk food and sweet treats available. We on MFP all know only too well it's a lot easier to take in the calories than burn them off. It maybe impossible to prove definitively so perhaps my post title was a bit premature, but I would bet a lot of money that it's the sugar in all that fast food, treats and biscuits that can take the lion's share of the blame.
We intuitively know that it's addictive. If you've got kids you know it is - that's why it's the main product they put next to the checkout aisle right?. If this whole discussion were about brussel sprouts being dangerous, how many of those defending sugar would defend brussel sprouts? Why don't they put veggies by the checkout in the supermarket :-) Let's wake up and see what we've always really known.0 -
I am glad you found what works for you.
Your study of one, though, is hardly proof. It is anecdotal and not scientific at all. I have lost almost 40 pounds in 19 weeks (so a nice, steady weekly loss), and I eat stuff with sugar in it.0 -
You're essentially correct. sugar is a carbohydrate and carbohydrates are the problem. Gary Taubes has documented this clearly in Good Calories Bad Calories as well as http://www.perfecthumandiet.us/
A calorie is simply not a calorie much to everyone's surprise.0 -
I guess I know too many diabetics and sugar is sugar when it comes to their numbers. Too much fruit is just as bad as too much regular sugar. Sure, fruit is healthier and has vitamins but the body seems to process it the same. No scientific articles to link here (although its the internet and if I took 10 minutes I would find plenty yay or naying this)
Just my own thoughts on it anyway. I limit but really don't worry about it all too much until I have to.0 -
You're essentially correct. sugar is a carbohydrate and carbohydrates are the problem. Gary Taubes has documented this clearly in Good Calories Bad Calories as well as http://www.perfecthumandiet.us/
A calorie is simply not a calorie much to everyone's surprise.
LOLTaubes, how did he document it clearly when he ignored large swaths of data that contradicted his silly hypothesis?0 -
You're essentially correct. sugar is a carbohydrate and carbohydrates are the problem. Gary Taubes has documented this clearly in Good Calories Bad Calories as well as http://www.perfecthumandiet.us/
A calorie is simply not a calorie much to everyone's surprise.
Why are carbohydrates the problem? You realize there are a large number of people on here who routinely eat 500+g carbs on a daily basis and are leaner and more athletically fit than those with your thought process.
I find it most comical that all of people who typically complain about carbs and sugars etc being the problem tend to overlook the aspect of fitness. The one correlation you will find is that those individuals who are consuming a large portion of carbs on a daily basis that are very lean and athletic, is that they actually kill it in the gym.
The real issue is that people consume too much food, cannot comprehend how to accurately track calories, and do not exercise hard enough. It's energy balance.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.
Am I a good enough fatty for your question? Check my diary; plenty of sugar in it. :drinker:0 -
bump0
-
You're essentially correct. sugar is a carbohydrate and carbohydrates are the problem. Gary Taubes has documented this clearly in Good Calories Bad Calories as well as http://www.perfecthumandiet.us/
A calorie is simply not a calorie much to everyone's surprise.
Why are carbohydrates the problem? You realize there are a large number of people on here who routinely eat 500+g carbs on a daily basis and are leaner and more athletically fit than those with your thought process.
I find it most comical that all of people who typically complain about carbs and sugars etc being the problem tend to overlook the aspect of fitness. The one correlation you will find is that those individuals who are consuming a large portion of carbs on a daily basis that are very lean and athletic, is that they actually kill it in the gym.
The real issue is that people consume too much food, cannot comprehend how to accurately track calories, and do not exercise hard enough. It's energy balance.
^ That.
<--- maintaining on 400g CHO currently.0 -
It would be interesting to do a study where one ate say 2000 calories of real food in one test group and another group also ate 2000 calories but had 1000 cals replaced by sugar and bread etc and see how that pans out over a year or two. I doubt it could every be controlled accurately or even if it's ethical but I suspect that group 2 would have higher body fat % and experience more hunger pangs. 1000 cals a day from simple carbs is not excessive either - try a large coke and large fries at Macky Ds.
They have done studies like this - although not as long term as you are suggesting. I even mentioned them earlier, here is the link to Freedmans review from Obesity Research:
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/atkins/freedman.pdf
Sugar provides ZERO nutrients. 100 cals of ANY other food is ALWAYS better for you than 100 cals of sugar because every other food contains at least some other nutrient.
So what? As Eric Helms says (paraphrased): Once your macro and micro nutrients are met, you don't get extra credit for eating more. If you can hit your macro and micros and still enjoy sugar there is no reason not to.
It certainly seems to be a minefield on the science side - you have to look carefully for any political agendas / profiteering on the part of the researchers
No you don't. You have to identify a problem with the scientific process. Finding out who paid for a study dose not negate the results on it's own. What you need to be wary of is how companies (or blog posts...or books) present the information found from those studies.
[/quote]
I just remember being a kid in the 1970s and very few people were fat - no-one was obese. I remember Dad taking me to McDonalds around age 10 and the explosion of junk food and sweet treats available.
Completely false and perfect example of why you can't rely on anecdotal evidence.
We intuitively know that it's addictive. If you've got kids you know it is - that's why it's the main product they put next to the checkout aisle right?. If this whole discussion were about brussel sprouts being dangerous, how many of those defending sugar would defend brussel sprouts? Why don't they put veggies by the checkout in the supermarket :-) Let's wake up and see what we've always really known.
No we don't. Enjoying something to excess does not necessarily mean addiction.0 -
I stopped reading @ Lustig.
Then I skipped to the end, as I saw SS had posted.
I see someone else talking about Taubes.
My neck is sore from shaking my head so much. Was Dr. Oz mentioned in between?0 -
You're essentially correct. sugar is a carbohydrate and carbohydrates are the problem. Gary Taubes has documented this clearly in Good Calories Bad Calories as well as http://www.perfecthumandiet.us/
A calorie is simply not a calorie much to everyone's surprise.
Why are carbohydrates the problem? You realize there are a large number of people on here who routinely eat 500+g carbs on a daily basis and are leaner and more athletically fit than those with your thought process.
I find it most comical that all of people who typically complain about carbs and sugars etc being the problem tend to overlook the aspect of fitness. The one correlation you will find is that those individuals who are consuming a large portion of carbs on a daily basis that are very lean and athletic, is that they actually kill it in the gym.
The real issue is that people consume too much food, cannot comprehend how to accurately track calories, and do not exercise hard enough. It's energy balance.
^ That.
<--- maintaining on 400g CHO currently.
Yep.
<---- 45 year old woman who maintained on 300g+ CHO0
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