For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar...
J72FIT
Posts: 6,002 Member
"Initial concern was raised that there might be a unique relationship between obesity and the consumption of HFCS because of the temporal association between increased use of HFCS in the American food supply to the increased prevalence of obesity between 1970 and 2000 [4]. Despite the popularity of this suggestion, there are numerous reasons this hypothesis should be discarded. Firstly, the temporal association between HFCS and obesity ended in 1999, when HFCS use began to diminish [30]. Secondly, numerous countries around the world have a similarly increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity as the United States, but do not use HFCS. Lastly, subsequent research studies have shown there is no difference between HFCS or sucrose in any metabolic parameter measured in human beings including glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, triglycerides, uric acid, appetite or calories consumed at the next meal [31, 32, 37]. Both the American Medical Association [38] and the American Dietetic Association [39] have issued statements declaring that there is nothing unique about HFCS that leads to obesity. Both of these statements note that all caloric sweeteners contain calories and should be used in moderation. The present data further support the theory that, when consumed at levels up to the 50th percentile for fructose in the context of a hypocaloric diet, neither HFCS nor sucrose impedes weight loss. These data provide further support to the concept that overall caloric consumption rather than one particular component of the diet is most important for achieving weight loss."
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-11-55
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-11-55
18
Replies
-
Too sum up: Eating too much sugar doesn't make you fat, eating too many calories does.21
-
fitoverfortymom wrote: »Too sum up: Eating too much sugar doesn't make you fat, eating too many calories does.
Mind blowing I'm sure...8 -
fitoverfortymom wrote: »Too sum up: Eating too much sugar doesn't make you fat, eating too many calories does.
Mind blowing I'm sure...
A real jolt.7 -
I know I know, it was funded by the Corn Refiners Association.
Bla bla bla...5 -
Unfortunately, there will be those who will discount this study do to the fact that the funding came from the corn refiners association.3
-
Yeah.0
-
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Corn Refiners Association.
8 -
I'm in a support group for weight loss on another site, and someone recommended a movie called "That sugar film". Complete fear mongering about sugar, and contradicts itself throughout. This is the exact kind of study I'd like to put up because so many really believe eating sugar, even if you don't change your calories will make you fat. They just have no concept.5
-
I'm having honey on my oats this morning...and a soda with my lunch...6
-
YvetteK2015 wrote: »I'm in a support group for weight loss on another site, and someone recommended a movie called "That sugar film". Complete fear mongering about sugar, and contradicts itself throughout. This is the exact kind of study I'd like to put up because so many really believe eating sugar, even if you don't change your calories will make you fat. They just have no concept.
Unfortunately, they would probably just dismiss this as industry funded research (as you noted above). People really want weight loss to be more complicated than it is.2 -
I can tell you from 15 years experience with calorie control, my body is VERY sensitive to large amounts of sugar which almost always leads to unbearable gnawing hunger. On days where I consume foods high in sugar with low/no nutritional value I'm left feeling hungrier than before, unsatisfied, and craving more. Many people struggle with deciphering hunger queues like myself and when you throw the confusing signals that result from the insulin spike and inevitable crash, you are left with eating more "calories" than your body needs and STILL feeling hungry and unsatisfied.
It's not as cut and dry as "calories are calories". You really have to question why some people "feel" they need to eat more than their body needs and have a harder time staying within their body's calorie needs. Why do diets high in sugar lead to overeating? Why doesn't the body feel extremely satisfied following a high sugar meal like it does following a high fat/protein meal?
There's more to the story, your article only scratches the surface of the obesity problem20 -
I can tell you from 15 years experience with calorie control, my body is VERY sensitive to large amounts of sugar which almost always leads to unbearable gnawing hunger. On days where I consume foods high in sugar with low/no nutritional value I'm left feeling hungrier than before, unsatisfied, and craving more. Many people struggle with deciphering hunger queues like myself and when you throw the confusing signals that result from the insulin spike and inevitable crash, you are left with eating more "calories" than your body needs and STILL feeling hungry and unsatisfied.
It's not as cut and dry as "calories are calories". You really have to question why some people "feel" they need to eat more than their body needs and have a harder time staying within their body's calorie needs. Why do diets high in sugar lead to overeating? Why doesn't the body feel extremely satisfied following a high sugar meal like it does following a high fat/protein meal?
There's more to the story, your article only scratches the surface of the obesity problem
That some people find certain foods more satisfying than others doesn't mean that a calorie isn't a calorie. It means that people should consider which foods make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit.
If some people feel hungrier when they eat large amounts of sugar (or HCFS), this still doesn't mean that there is something in sugar (or, the subject of the study, HFCS) that -- in and of itself -- creates weight gain. That is the claim that was being addressed here.
I feel really hungry the rest of the day when I have oatmeal for breakfast, even when there is no sugar in it. This doesn't mean there is some inherent problem with oatmeal or that other people should avoid it, it just means it is something important for me to take into account personally. It doesn't mean the calories in oatmeal are different than the calories in other food.18 -
I can tell you from 15 years experience with calorie control, my body is VERY sensitive to large amounts of sugar which almost always leads to unbearable gnawing hunger. On days where I consume foods high in sugar with low/no nutritional value I'm left feeling hungrier than before, unsatisfied, and craving more. Many people struggle with deciphering hunger queues like myself and when you throw the confusing signals that result from the insulin spike and inevitable crash, you are left with eating more "calories" than your body needs and STILL feeling hungry and unsatisfied.
It's not as cut and dry as "calories are calories". You really have to question why some people "feel" they need to eat more than their body needs and have a harder time staying within their body's calorie needs. Why do diets high in sugar lead to overeating? Why doesn't the body feel extremely satisfied following a high sugar meal like it does following a high fat/protein meal?
There's more to the story, your article only scratches the surface of the obesity problem
I don't believe the article states calories are calories. The article states, "overall caloric consumption rather than one particular component of the diet is most important for achieving weight loss..."6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I can tell you from 15 years experience with calorie control, my body is VERY sensitive to large amounts of sugar which almost always leads to unbearable gnawing hunger. On days where I consume foods high in sugar with low/no nutritional value I'm left feeling hungrier than before, unsatisfied, and craving more. Many people struggle with deciphering hunger queues like myself and when you throw the confusing signals that result from the insulin spike and inevitable crash, you are left with eating more "calories" than your body needs and STILL feeling hungry and unsatisfied.
It's not as cut and dry as "calories are calories". You really have to question why some people "feel" they need to eat more than their body needs and have a harder time staying within their body's calorie needs. Why do diets high in sugar lead to overeating? Why doesn't the body feel extremely satisfied following a high sugar meal like it does following a high fat/protein meal?
There's more to the story, your article only scratches the surface of the obesity problem
That some people find certain foods more satisfying than others doesn't mean that a calorie isn't a calorie. It means that people should consider which foods make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit.
If some people feel hungrier when they eat large amounts of sugar (or HCFS), this still doesn't mean that there is something in sugar (or, the subject of the study, HFCS) that -- in and of itself -- creates weight gain. That is the claim that was being addressed here.
I feel really hungry the rest of the day when I have oatmeal for breakfast, even when there is no sugar in it. This doesn't mean there is some inherent problem with oatmeal or that other people should avoid it, it just means it is something important for me to take into account personally. It doesn't mean the calories in oatmeal are different than the calories in other food.
^This. Satiety is a completely different discussion than the fact that eating sugar/HFCS, in and of itself, does not cause weight gain/obesity any more so than any other macronutrient when calories are held equal.8 -
I can tell you from 15 years experience with calorie control, my body is VERY sensitive to large amounts of sugar which almost always leads to unbearable gnawing hunger. On days where I consume foods high in sugar with low/no nutritional value I'm left feeling hungrier than before, unsatisfied, and craving more. Many people struggle with deciphering hunger queues like myself and when you throw the confusing signals that result from the insulin spike and inevitable crash, you are left with eating more "calories" than your body needs and STILL feeling hungry and unsatisfied.
It's not as cut and dry as "calories are calories". You really have to question why some people "feel" they need to eat more than their body needs and have a harder time staying within their body's calorie needs. Why do diets high in sugar lead to overeating? Why doesn't the body feel extremely satisfied following a high sugar meal like it does following a high fat/protein meal?
There's more to the story, your article only scratches the surface of the obesity problem
What is a "high sugar meal"...any meal for me tends to be a combination of some kind of protein, veg, grain/starch, and some fat...sometimes I like to add some honey or maple syrup to my oats, but that's never changed the satiety of my oats...occasionally I have a soda with my lunch...it has never made me all of a sudden be hungry even though I just ate a full meal...
Pie isn't a meal...I don't think anyone would really be satiated for hours with a slice of pie...though I could be wrong.8 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Corn Refiners Association.
They have to receive money from some where. And many times, the scientist do not even meet or have any interaction with those who fund the studies. Heck, look at almost any low carb study and you will see Atkins through around quite often. In the end, the funding sources doesn't disprove what was tested or evaluated.4 -
There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.7 -
Could I lose weight on a diet of donuts, Coke's, M&M's and Reese's PBC's? Yes I could if I stayed under my calorie limit daily.
But.....
Is that high sugar diet healthy????6 -
There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Well said. However I fear you will be attacked for suggesting one cannot live on sugar alone as long as their CO is greater than their CI. You will get the "I eat ice cream and drink soda everyday and look at me" crowd beating you into submission. But I agree with you 100%. If nothing else this will be an entertaining post to watch today.
2 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Could I lose weight on a diet of donuts, Coke's, M&M's and Reese's PBC's? Yes I could if I stayed under my calorie limit daily.
But.....
Is that high sugar diet healthy????
What does that have to do with the study?9 -
Why do diets high in sugar lead to overeating?
Because sugar isn't very filling. That's really all there is to it. If you eat something with a lot of calories that doesn't fill you up, then you're still hungry. You've used up your calories, but you eat more food which has more calories in order to be full. It's not that the diabolical sugar brainwashed you.10 -
There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Why not just talk about the study rather then assuming why I posted it?12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »I'm in a support group for weight loss on another site, and someone recommended a movie called "That sugar film". Complete fear mongering about sugar, and contradicts itself throughout. This is the exact kind of study I'd like to put up because so many really believe eating sugar, even if you don't change your calories will make you fat. They just have no concept.
Unfortunately, they would probably just dismiss this as industry funded research (as you noted above). People really want weight loss to be more complicated than it is.
If something is complicated then they have a great excuse to quit or not do it at all. I use to think weight loss was hard and complicated, I had to figure out what foods to eat, what foods to avoid, what time I could eat, it was complicated and I quit because it was hard. After I realized it wasn't hard quitting was my fault and I couldn't blame it on complicated weight loss anymore.2 -
There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Why not just talk about the study rather then assuming why I posted it?
Because it just a vicious circle of opinions and studies, everyone proving their argument, blah blah blah, plus I have to go eat my reece's peanut butter cups for breakfast.2 -
There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Well said. However I fear you will be attacked for suggesting one cannot live on sugar alone as long as their CO is greater than their CI. You will get the "I eat ice cream and drink soda everyday and look at me" crowd beating you into submission. But I agree with you 100%. If nothing else this will be an entertaining post to watch today.
Please link to the multitudes of threads/posters which advocate living on a 100% sugar diet. And also where in the study linked in the original post there was any discussion of/reference to such diet.
Strawmen are made of straw, and straw is a carb. And carbs are metabolized into simple sugars.17 -
There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Why not just talk about the study rather then assuming why I posted it?
Because it just a vicious circle of opinions and studies, everyone proving their argument, blah blah blah, plus I have to go eat my reece's peanut butter cups for breakfast.There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Why not just talk about the study rather then assuming why I posted it?
Because it just a vicious circle of opinions and studies, everyone proving their argument, blah blah blah, plus I have to go eat my reece's peanut butter cups for breakfast.
I think conversations only turn into vicious cycles when people make assumptions about other people instead of reading what they've written, respond to that specifically, and ask questions about what they don't understand.
So if you aren't interested in discussing OP's post and instead want to talk about OP, I don't think OP is the one looking for an argument here.10 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Could I lose weight on a diet of donuts, Coke's, M&M's and Reese's PBC's? Yes I could if I stayed under my calorie limit daily.
But.....
Is that high sugar diet healthy????
Hi there.
21 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Why not just talk about the study rather then assuming why I posted it?
Because it just a vicious circle of opinions and studies, everyone proving their argument, blah blah blah, plus I have to go eat my reece's peanut butter cups for breakfast.There is a study to prove and support everyone's point of view, most only base their study on proving one specific point about one specific thing rather than the big picture. Tobacco companies still say tobacco does not cause cancer and have their studies to prove it lol. What ever you want to believe there will be a study for to support you.
The point of a post stating "For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar..." is just to incite people to argue, which is what will happen. I do not believe the op (or many other people) would set out to maintain a solid diet of high sugar foods and believe it's healthy as long as he keeps it under his caloric allotment.
Why not just talk about the study rather then assuming why I posted it?
Because it just a vicious circle of opinions and studies, everyone proving their argument, blah blah blah, plus I have to go eat my reece's peanut butter cups for breakfast.
I think conversations only turn into vicious cycles when people make assumptions about other people instead of reading what they've written, respond to that specifically, and ask questions about what they don't understand.
So if you aren't interested in discussing OP's post and instead want to talk about OP, I don't think OP is the one looking for an argument here.
Point taken. However cant part of discussion be the reason behind a post? To post one study and say 'have at 'er' is designed to be an argument in it's design. I'm not arguing, i am merely starting that everyone will have their opinions. When the op asked why, I stated why.
3 -
OP: Sugar consumption alone does not lead to weight gain. Overconsumption of calories from all sources leads to weight gain.
Posters: You think we should eat nothing but refined sugar!!11!17
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions