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

Kimdbro

bump for the youtube links. Thanks for the share.

SirBonerFart

a pound is not a pound... we know this because a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat

ninerbuff

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.

Lol, so do you eat bugs and worms too? The body is more adaptive to environmental stimuli than you may think.

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

Mgregory723

Bump...need to check this out as I have a huge sweet tooth!

SideSteel

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.

ruthiejewell

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!!!

BrainyBurro

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.

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:

rachseby

I've never tracked sugar, just my over all carbs. Never affected me.

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...

lpina2mi

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. "

Acg67

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.pdf

ndj1979

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.

I believe the argument everyone else is making is that they are obese because they eat too much of all the things that you mentioned...

If they were to eat in a calorie deficit and have a little pizza or a sweet once in a while they would lose weight and be healthier..

I eat pasta about once a week and maintain 13% body fat....I probably eat rice once a night...as long as I fit it into my calorie and carb goal for the day, that is what matters...

pluckabee

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.

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:

Good thing my body can create glucose for itself even when I don't eat carbohydrates!!

kacn28

I'm probably not adding anything new to this thread but I spent 5 weeks in Italy about 5 years ago and had a minimum of two gelatos a day, everyday. Yes I know that's horrible for you but I wasn't really eating too much of anything else because it was too hot so I stayed within a reasonable calorie-intake range. Point is I lost about 15 pounds in that time. I guess sugar reacts differently in everyone's body.

I don't think your point is bad though. Too much sugar isn't really good for anyone and I don't mean for weight loss

shadus

It's interesting but single data point is not proof or evidence in the most loose sense of terms even.

It's great that its working for you.

I've lost somewhere between 600 and 800 lbs in 20 years (yoyo) I've done it on atkins, low fat, low cal, low sugar, fasting, intermittent fasting, high carb, juicing, hell i lost 60lbs on fast food one time, etc... they all work at losing the weight.

A calorie is a calorie... from a weight loss perspective strictly. I can eat meat, carbs, or fat and lose weight just fine as long as I'm at a solid caloric deficit of 500 calories per day per lb per week. It's that simple.

My grandmother is a rail, all she eats is sugar (literally 90% of her calories come from hard candy per day.) Shrug.

Now a calorie isn't just a calorie when it comes to health, you are FAR better off with adequate protein from healthy animals not loaded with steroids and antibiotics, heart healthy fats, and carbs with good micro-nutrients from lots of fresh veggies.

etoiles_argentees

NuSI, Taubes and Lustig, is supposedly nonprofit yet take a look at their contributions, and who they're coming from. Once again, no money left from the tobacco suits, there's been groups of attorneys+ chipping away at big food for 20+ years now.

" Why would a billionaire energy trader-turned-philanthropist throw his foundation's dough behind a new think tank that wants to challenge scientific assumptions about obesity?
John Arnold, 38, whose move from Enron to a spectacularly successful hedge fund got him on the list of wealthiest Americans, isn't crazy about talking to the press. But certainly his decision with his wife Laura to back a newly launched operation called the Nutrition Science Initiative, or NuSI, is an intriguing one." $5 million."

...and so on.


I'm not going to get in to food politics here, I can do that elsewhere. So...I'll give you the best diet book ever, for free!

UsedToBeHusky

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.

BrainyBurro

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.

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:

Good thing my body can create glucose for itself even when I don't eat carbohydrates!!

oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.

WendyTerry420

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.

Well of course you can eat small amounts of it and be just fine.

A calorie is a specific unit used to measure energy, just like a pound is a unit to measure weight, or a mile is a unit to measure distance. You are confusing calories with nutrients. How this relates to sugar..... sucrose is pure energy, void of micronutrients. Consuming sugar increases the "Energy-in" half of the equation. If it leads to more energy and more exercise, then it also effects the "Energy-out" half as well. It's easy to over-consume sugar since it's so high in calories. But you certainly can not eat what I would call "loads" of it and expect to lose weight. But to me, "loads" of sugar would be like 3 or 4 pieces of cake or a half a dozen cookies. To someone else, just one piece of cake might be "loads," so maybe they cut a piece in half instead, or just eat half a cookie. To another, eating a half dozen cookies or three or four doughnuts is a rev-up for a nice, long run. It depends on the context, and it especially depends on the "Energy-out" side of the equation.

Mischievous_Rascal

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.

I eat ice cream, chocolate, potato chips, bread, cookies, alcohol, whatever I want - DAILY. As long as I'm getting adequate protein and fat, and I stay in a deficit, I lose weight - that's what "moderation" is all about, for me anyway. My ticker says 94 pounds lost, but that's scale weight. I have no clue how much I've gained in muscle, but I think it's fairly safe to say I've lost more than 100 lbs of fat. My macros are set to 35C/35P/30F.

Have I done the low-carb/low-sugar thing? Sure, but I was miserable - my sweet tooth and I have lived together for over 40 years and it can be a noisy bugger when ignored! And it didn't work, beacuse it wasn't a lifestyle change I could live with for very long. I want to be healthy AND happy with my choices about food.

pluckabee

oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.

But I'm not sluggish and I have plenty of energy and people on even lower carb than I, for longer periods that I, are not having problems with energy or mental sluggishness.