For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar...
Options
Replies
-
"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
"Competing interests
JM Rippe has received research funding from the Corn Refiners Association for the present study. "
1 -
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 certainly can't control how you view it. Enjoy your breakfast.
The last part of my last comment was sarcastic and my apologies, that's not me, well it is me, but not normally in public forums.
As the op, what are your thoughts on the study? You are obviously a fit, ripped guy (just kudo's, no sarcasm) and presumably eat well, just curious, what is your opinion?
In all seriousness this...
"Overall caloric consumption rather than one particular component of the diet is most important for achieving weight loss..."7 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »"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
"Competing interests
JM Rippe has received research funding from the Corn Refiners Association for the present study. "
and...?5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »"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
"Competing interests
JM Rippe has received research funding from the Corn Refiners Association for the present study. "
Already been discussed on the first page and subset responses. Funding does not disprove or change the results of the study. Often times researchers don't have any interaction with those who fund the research. And since research cost money, you need to get it from somewhere...7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So I guess you eat nothing but doughnuts, M&Ms, and Reeces and wash it all down with a coke and a smile then?
No, I keep it balanced by adding a tub of cake frosting every now and then. Gotta have my refeed days.
Wait, you can get vegan M&Ms and Reese's? Tell me more.
4 -
http://getunreal.com/#home
http://sharelittlesecrets.com/
Not all the Little Secrets are vegan, but the peanut ones are and they are AMAZING. I brought a family size bag home once and I was like "OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?"3 -
2 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the study examined people on a weight-loss regimen who consumed moderate amounts of either sucrose or HFCS. It found that the form of the sugar didn't really matter, and that all groups were pretty similar in their response. It doesn't sound like it tested whether avoiding added sugars helped with weight loss, or whether added sugars had any effect on what people were likely to eat if their caloric intake wasn't controlled as it was in the study.
Also, I didn't see anything about weight gain studied, just weight loss. I thought the conclusion was that it didn't matter whether someone ate sucrose or HFCS, as long as everything else was kept under control. Is that right?1 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the study examined people on a weight-loss regimen who consumed moderate amounts of either sucrose or HFCS. It found that the form of the sugar didn't really matter, and that all groups were pretty similar in their response. It doesn't sound like it tested whether avoiding added sugars helped with weight loss, or whether added sugars had any effect on what people were likely to eat if their caloric intake wasn't controlled as it was in the study.
Also, I didn't see anything about weight gain studied, just weight loss. I thought the conclusion was that it didn't matter whether someone ate sucrose or HFCS, as long as everything else was kept under control. Is that right?
Is this what you are asking?
Methods
This was a randomized, prospective, double blind trial, with overweight/obese participants measured for body composition and blood chemistry before and after the completion of 12 weeks following a hypocaloric diet. The average caloric deficit achieved on the hypocaloric diets was 309 kcal.
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-11-553 -
There is more to it than CICO, not suggesting that CICO doesn't rule weight loss/gain.http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425
Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.
None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.0 -
@psuLemon Yes, basically, except that it doesn't mention anything about diets with few or no added sugars. From this part of the description I inferred that they didn't test a group like that:The objective of this study was to examine the effects of four equally hypocaloric diets containing different levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
In other words, it doesn't seem to me that the study considered whether eliminating or greatly restricting added sugars made a difference to weight loss.
Relatedly, people often mention that foods with added sugar don't leave them satiated and might even make them more hungry. In a non-controlled situation (i.e., real life) it could lead to people eating more. Or at least, eating less but not being as happy about it.0 -
There is more to it than CICO, not suggesting that CICO doesn't rule weight loss/gain.http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425
Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.
None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.
And there is more.Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them. There are plenty of reasons to avoid sugary drinks and foods with added sugar, like empty calories, weight gain, and blood sugar swings. Lustig offers another.1 -
@psuLemon Yes, basically, except that it doesn't mention anything about diets with few or no added sugars. From this part of the description I inferred that they didn't test a group like that:The objective of this study was to examine the effects of four equally hypocaloric diets containing different levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
In other words, it doesn't seem to me that the study considered whether eliminating or greatly restricting added sugars made a difference to weight loss.
Relatedly, people often mention that foods with added sugar don't leave them satiated and might even make them more hungry. In a non-controlled situation (i.e., real life) it could lead to people eating more. Or at least, eating less but not being as happy about it.
Yea, I'd have to look for the other study.
Overall, I agree with you. In free living conditions, I regularly restrict or limit added sugar largely so I can eat more filling foods (especially low sugar berries because I need large volume). I even advocate such an approach with people I have trained. But if one has some room and wants to eat a treat, then by all means because we need to address the psychological aspects as well.2 -
and...?
Because you can't place too much trust in industry sponsored studies. We already know this is true for big pharm. It's probably also true for other industries.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28207928
For what it's worth I actually agree with your study's findings. But I would not consider it strong evidence because if researchers are biased they can find the result they want.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I recommend you read some of steven guynet's work on why people over-eat. There's definitely a reward pathway in our brains when it comes to certain types of food, especially sugary ones. Regardless, we know sugary foods can stimulate over eating. That doesn't mean we have to avoid sugar. But informed people trying to lose weight should take that into account.0 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »Unfortunately, there will be those who will discount this study do to the fact that the funding came from the corn refiners association.menotyou56 wrote: »Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Corn Refiners Association.
Like clockwork.8 -
It doesn't sound like it tested whether avoiding added sugars helped with weight loss, or whether added sugars had any effect on what people were likely to eat if their caloric intake wasn't controlled as it was in the study.
OP didn't suggest otherwise.
Logging on MFP, btw, is a way of controlling calories.2 -
-
and...?
Because you can't place too much trust in industry sponsored studies. We already know this is true for big pharm. It's probably also true for other industries.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28207928
For what it's worth I actually agree with your study's findings. But I would not consider it strong evidence because if researchers are biased they can find the result they want.
I don't totally disagree. That said, what studies are not biased one way or another?1 -
There is more to it than CICO, not suggesting that CICO doesn't rule weight loss/gain.http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425
Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.
None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.
That blog post appears to be factually incorrect from the very start.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652499/
While a lot of fructose is metabolized in the liver, muscle, fat cells, kidneys and even the brain possess the capability of taking in and metabolizing fructose.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 946 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions