For Those Who Still Think It's About Sugar...

13»

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.

    People need to make wise choices.

    Calories are like a budget. You're going to burn a certain number of them just by living, and you can increase that with exercise if you want; then you spend what you've got on meals and treats. Sugar is an expensive treat. I guess it's a little bit like paying for a taxi instead of walking if you're on a fixed income.

    But a lot of people can afford some amount of snacks. If they choose to eat sugar, that won't prevent them from losing weight, as long as they stick to their calories. There's a balance, and it isn't always easy to stick to. But that doesn't mean sugar has magical powers to make people fat.

    Yeah, good way to put it.

    I would find eating a diet of mostly sugary things unpleasant, really, but also not sating and hard to stick to. If I were someone who thought of ice cream as a meal (and I really think such people are rare) and decided to try eating only sweets or a huge amount of treats and logged, I'd learn quickly that it was hard to control calories doing that and stop. I really think that's basic common sense, and find it annoying that some seem to think that others must be told that that is the case.

    But if I include a half cup of ice cream after dinner in my day, that wouldn't make my day unsatiating, and might even make me MORE satisfied after all. I'm not going to be more likely to be hungry on a sensible day of (say) 1600 with ice cream than one without, if I don't eat stupidly for the other 1400 calories.

    So this idea that eating added sugar makes you overeat is, IMO, wrong.

    I think it's less that someone overeats because he/she is hungry as someone (not counting calories) can overeat certain foods more easily, because they are not really being consumed due to hunger anyway, but taste. I know I used to overeat sometimes between meals or after dinner when I wasn't even hungry at all.
  • BlueSkyShoal
    BlueSkyShoal Posts: 325 Member
    Just wanted to say that taking a study like this at face value, without looking into the peer reviews and critiques of it, is not very useful. You can't just say, "Study XYZ reached conclusion ABC, therefore conclusion ABC is DEFINITELY true!"

    It's thinking like this that leads to news outlets releasing stories with sensationalist titles like "Your cat wants to kill you" and "Is your olive oil fake?"

    No offense to the OP. Just wanted to point out that there's a bigger context. Also the group sponsoring the study 100% is worth looking at; there's a reason tobacco scientists were coming up with conclusions like "secondhand smoke totally won't give you lung cancer" back in the 70s/80s, lol. I'm not saying this sugar study is bad, or good. I'm just saying "more data required."
  • DietPrada
    DietPrada Posts: 1,171 Member
    A high sugar diet directly relates to one's ability to stick to a low calorie diet. I agree that you could eat 1200 calories a day of pure sugar and lose weight however anyone who has yoyo dieted for most of their lives will know that sugar causes insulin spike causes hunger and pretty much guarantees you will fail and eat all the things. You can try and simplify all you want, but there are many more facets to successfully losing weight and keeping it off long term than just "eat less".
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    BlueSkyShoal wrote: »
    Just wanted to say that taking a study like this at face value, without looking into the peer reviews and critiques of it, is not very useful. You can't just say, "Study XYZ reached conclusion ABC, therefore conclusion ABC is DEFINITELY true!"

    It's thinking like this that leads to news outlets releasing stories with sensationalist titles like "Your cat wants to kill you" and "Is your olive oil fake?"

    No offense to the OP. Just wanted to point out that there's a bigger context. Also the group sponsoring the study 100% is worth looking at; there's a reason tobacco scientists were coming up with conclusions like "secondhand smoke totally won't give you lung cancer" back in the 70s/80s, lol. I'm not saying this sugar study is bad, or good. I'm just saying "more data required."

    None taken. That said, this is anything but sensationalism. More like common sense...
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    BlueSkyShoal wrote: »
    It's thinking like this that leads to news outlets releasing stories with sensationalist titles like "Your cat wants to kill you" and "Is your olive oil fake?"

    As you said, those are headlines in newspapers, meant to attract readers (or viewers). Those aren't titles in studies. We're talking about a study, not a sensational news outlet.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories