Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people keep defending sugar?
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »Definitely gut biome.
So many way$ that one can be exploited, especially right now when Covid is more deadly for overweight people.
Here, buy this DNA test. Only $1200. It will tell you your genetic predisposition for XXX food types. Then eat XXX food types that we sell in these little pretty packages for $99.99 per week. These supplements too, which will prevent you catching the virus.
Done.
That will be $2400, for three months. But! Thin and no covid.
OOooo: Combine genetics and microbiome? That's brilliant! You shoulda been a marketer.
Or are/were you one?
Probably not a sleazy enough one, though.2 -
Or, you know, eat a varied diet of appropriate calories with sufficient protein and fat, let the sugarz fall where they fall and send me the $2400.
That covers every angle in this thread I think.5 -
cmriverside wrote: »It's ab libitum, so it looks like it's testing the idea that people eat less on low carb vs. low fat and, specifically, that higher insulin (which the low carb group did have) causes more hunger or fat storage, while more ketones=appetite suppression. And in the study they ate more on low carb, but reported no more hunger, contradicting the hypothesis that insulin drives hunger and ketones kill it.
Right, but what does that have to do with...anything? "Eating less" is great for weight loss, and m a y b e the urge to eat less is more carb based for some people...but still?
It's attempting to prove glucose/insulin/hunger? Or PBLF is better than ABLC? Or?
It is testing the glucose/insulin/hunger and ketones/less hunger theory. It is one study that fails to support that hypothesis (and thus some evidence that it is wrong).I would definitely be happier on PBLF for the short term, but at some point I'm going to really have a desire for fats.
Yeah, this is the problem with any of these studies that focus on just naturally eating less on certain ways of eating, but they still can be interesting and informative. This is similar to that study that compared more and less processed diets and the cals people consumed on them (similarly in a controlled lab experience).
Mainly, I wouldn't think of it (or psychod) as saying that PBLF is ideal for weight loss or trying to show it's superior to some other way of eating for weight loss. It's specifically trying to test the claims made re what causes hunger and thus general overeating. (I don't really think overeating is so much about actual hunger on average, but food culture and availability and tastiness and convenience, personally.)In addition the "study" was done in lab (so controlled food intake/measurments, at least that part they got right) BUT it was 20 people for two weeks. Was this ad libitum PB diet all vegetables and whole grains? Was the AB diet all bacon, hamburger and cheese? I mean, two weeks? Seems...not valid to me. Again I read only the abstract but how much "weight" did each group lose? In two weeks not much to be observed other than the ad libitum part, IMO.
I'm sure it's detailed, but the diets were controlled for protein (which is important).
The specific foods don't matter because the ONLY thing they were testing is the theory that higher glucose/insulin leads to hunger and ketones lead to less, and thus people with higher glucose/insulin will eat more than those with less, and those with higher ketones will eat less than those with more. The PBLF diet DID result in higher glucose/insulin, but the people still (on average) were satisfied and no more hungry on less food, whereas those on the ABLC diet DID have ketones, but ate far more.And - (edit) NO. They ate less on the PBLF and reported the same amounts of hunger...which is pretty subjective, no? Again, not sure what they're trying to prove here.
More cals, but same amount of hunger suggests equal cals and more hunger -- that was my point. The crucial question is how many cals.
Disclosure: I personally think that for most the focus on macros alone is likely less important than food choice. For me food choice matters a lot, but there are low carb and high carb ways of eating that I find make it easy to naturally eat lower cal. I prefer moderate carb just because I enjoy a lot of higher fat foods and find my diet more enjoyable over time than I would with LF, and I don't think that's at all inconsistent with this study, which was focused on one specific issue (the effects of higher glucose/insulin/ketones), NOT suggesting all should eat PBLF.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-9
And then there’s the whole thing of us not being rats.
Well.... some people are more rat like than they want to admit. A study I have posted several times....
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/rdjfb/
I admit I only read the abstract, but since it's "your" study, can you explain a tiny bit? The results are on PBLF vs. ABLC...that's interesting to have such nutritive variation. Seems they would either do it on PB or AB, but not mixed.
It also says there was a 700 calorie difference between the methods. Seems a bit...I don't know...flawed? They are proving three or four different points? Maybe I'm not smart enough, but that study seems to be a throw-away.The PBLF diet resulted in substantially greater glucose and insulin levels whereas the ABLC diet led to increased blood ketones of ~3 mM which is thought to suppress appetite. However, ad libitum energy intake was 689±73 kcal/d lower during the PBLF diet as compared to the ABLC diet (p<0.0001) with no significant differences in appetite ratings or enjoyment of meals. These data challenge the veracity of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity and suggest that the PBLF diet had benefits for appetite control whereas the ABLC diet had benefits for lowering blood glucose and insulin.
Oh momma bird. The story of this study is in an inpatient clinic, random, crossover study, a high "sugar" diet led to a large decrease in calorie intake. Usually you hear, "the subjects on keto were not fat addapted." Whatever that means, but they were in ketosis after only 1 week. That is how tightly the macros were controlled. So, sugars are not the "demon" I had someone above call out the rodent study with the typical "but, but, that was in rats!" Routine. This was humans.psychod787 wrote: »Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-9
Leaving aside the merits or importance of the studies for the moment:
Dear, dear Psycho, my honorary internet nephew, I think you're missing the big picture. The demonizing/defending is about the culture and the marketing potential, not about science or rationality at all.
In that big picture, the "demonize fat" idea is old, tired, done, debunked, nearly all its marketing potential knocked out (though there are still vestiges lingering in blogs and among trainers). It was replaced by a "demonize sugar (or carbs)" notion, leading to a whole boatload of profitable books, blogs, diets, programs, and more. Look at the diet bookshelves, newstands, etc.
Now, we're nearing an inflection point: The collective light is beginning to dawn that sugar is not "it", either. Think about that graph, showing our collective sugar intake beginning to drop quite meaningfully, while the "obesity crisis" keeps growing. The "sugar demonizers" are becoming or about to become the old guard, and the "sugar defenders" are part of making way for the next magical, marketable "solution" to obesity. Both camps are helpless, hapless, corpuscles in the bloodstream of culture and marketing opportunity.
What will be next, as "sugar/carbs BAD" continues to lose sway?
Whole food plant based is a candidate, with some rational basis, but the marketing opportunities are a little limited: Supplements? Superfoods? Veggie recipes for people who don't know how to cook? Some revenue there, but not much, mere millions, possibly low billions. Small potatoes.
My money is on something genetic, or microbiome related. Those have the needed elements: Tinge of science (that most of us don't understand, so manipulatable for marketing purposes), hasn't been tried/discredited before (oldies can be revived, but one needs some radical new "hook" to rehab them).
The genetics angle could be drugs or supplements, could be a tarted-up revamp of the somatotype/blood-type style of diet/exercise ideas: It has potential.
Microbiome is the sexy new kid, almost perfect: Supplements, diets, constant stream of new studies to exploit (to create cool-looking footnote links no one follows, let alone reads).
Invest early! Your search for scientific knowledge is touching, but will potentially profit you only in health and physical contentment. For monetary profit, look elsewhere. As the profit goes, there goes the culture.
(Do I need this: 
But it probably won't help.)
Oh aunt granny. The reason I am kind of prickly about this topic is I was one of the people who was scared by low carb zealots into being afraid of fruit for a long time. So, I have a certain dog in the fight. Oh, hard to sell the microbiome issue. Best was to have a healthy gut is to eat plenty of varied plant sources of fiber. Oh dang, i gave away the $2400 secret!🤪4 -
cmriverside wrote: »n addition the "study" was done in lab (so controlled food intake/measurments, at least that part they got right) BUT it was 20 people for two weeks. Was this ad libitum PB diet all vegetables and whole grains? Was the AB diet all bacon, hamburger and cheese?
Following up, I looked at the menus, and they looked pretty comparable. The ABLC diet looked like what I'd call a healthy keto diet, with lots of veg and largely whole or minimally-processed foods. The PBLF one also looked like a healthy diet with plenty of veg, but also, of course, various PB protein sources like soy (as they had to equate protein) and breads and and rice and pasta, not all whole grain.
As noted above, the model of this study (testing ad libitum choices in a lab) seems quite similar to the study (also by Kevin Hall) that compared highly-processed to minimally-processed diets. The problem is you can't have a lab controlled diet and have a long study because there's only so long you can do it.2 -
But who really cares about hunger when talking about weight loss and/or sugar vs fat.
This whole side trip has been just about what I would expect on page 14 of a thread that was doomed on page one.
If the whole point of the experiment was how much people would eat, that is a lame experiment when it comes to weight control other than the fact it disproves the "I'm not as hungry on keto," thing.More cals, but same amount of hunger suggests equal cals and more hunger -- that was my point. The crucial question is how many cals.
That's not what it says. I mean I guess it's semantics since they say "Less calories, same hunger" and you're saying, "More calories same hunger" but it matters when we're having a sugar/insulin/hunger discussion.
Isn't hunger entirely subjective? How does one rank "hunger?" With 20 people reporting for two weeks, that seems not-useful at all.
I don't want to spend any more time in this rabbit hole. It's just not a useful study, IMO.
Here's the quote from the abstract again,The PBLF diet resulted in substantially greater glucose and insulin levels whereas the ABLC diet led to increased blood ketones of ~3 mM which is thought to suppress appetite. However, ad libitum energy intake was 689±73 kcal/d lower during the PBLF diet as compared to the ABLC diet (p<0.0001) with no significant differences in appetite ratings or enjoyment of meals. These data challenge the veracity of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity and suggest that the PBLF diet had benefits for appetite control whereas the ABLC diet had benefits for lowering blood glucose and insulin.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »If the whole point of the experiment was how much people would eat, that is a lame experiment when it comes to weight control other than the fact it disproves the "I'm not as hungry on keto," thing.
No experiment is going to do more than support/not support one hypothesis. And often they seem rather obvious, as with the ultra processed vs minimally processed study that we nevertheless talked about for a long time and many of us found interesting.
The point of this one was, basically, to test the insulin hypothesis, which Kevin Hall and others have also done with various other studies.
It does not disprove "I'm not as hungry on keto" -- many likely are not when compared with their prior diets, and for some keto may make all the difference. The results here, however, suggest that high carb/low fat diets are not inherently hunger-inducing or leading to the consumption of more cals vs. a keto diet. And that is directly relevant to the hypothesis being tested.
It may not be interesting to you personally, but I think it's interesting. Enough people assert the insulin claim that we should test it, and Kevin Hall is.Isn't hunger entirely subjective? How does one rank "hunger?" With 20 people reporting for two weeks, that seems not-useful at all.
Asking people to rank their hunger is an incredibly common question in studies, and I've not seen you complain about it before.
IMO, the better test is how much they actually ate -- the insulin claim would be that those on a high carb, low fat diet would almost always eat more, since insulin makes you hungry and higher carbs is what cause people to overeat.
From your quote from the abstract, I am bolding the relevant bit (I went ahead and read through the whole thing and found it interesting, including the food choices, as noted before):The PBLF diet resulted in substantially greater glucose and insulin levels whereas the ABLC diet led to increased blood ketones of ~3 mM which is thought to suppress appetite. However, ad libitum energy intake was 689±73 kcal/d lower during the PBLF diet as compared to the ABLC diet (p<0.0001) with no significant differences in appetite ratings or enjoyment of meals. These data challenge the veracity of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity and suggest that the PBLF diet had benefits for appetite control whereas the ABLC diet had benefits for lowering blood glucose and insulin.3 -
Isn't satiety subjective? I was satiated eating very high carbs, and also recently with my junk food diet. It seems when i'm at a very low body weight I get less hungry.5
-
Isn't satiety subjective? I was satiated eating very high carbs, and also recently with my junk food diet. It seems when i'm at a very low body weight I get less hungry.
Well, yes, but actually no? There is such a thing as intersubjectivity, where some phenomena may be subjective but still agreeably true across all individuals.
Ultimately a person's particular satiety is individualistic. There's overall tendencies of foods towards satiety that probably have something to do with how various nutrients meet various evolutionary needs.4 -
In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't think it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3240783 -
Are instant mashed potatoes close to that?
1 last flavored package and son didn't like the first one, I can finish it off on run day at least. Left over doesn't appear to work well with it.
This will be good test for me and high carb idea using potatoes.1 -
ROFL
0 -
@magnusthenerd come to the rescue. I cannot quit laughing and it feels so good.1
-
Are instant mashed potatoes close to that?
1 last flavored package and son didn't like the first one, I can finish it off on run day at least. Left over doesn't appear to work well with it.
This will be good test for me and high carb idea using potatoes.
I think yes :
“In the original satiety index study, boiled or baked potatoes had the highest score of 323.”
“They found potato-based meals were effective at reducing appetite, relative to the other side dishes.”
1 -
In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't think it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324078
Plain boiled potatoes can be highly filling for the calories. Potatoes have about 80 calories for a 100gram serving. Try a little experiment. Boil up 900 grams of potatoes and try to eat them plain. No salt, butter, nothing.... Tell me how many you can eat!4 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »ROFL
Those look like clean teeth - must not have been eating extra sugar!2 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »ROFL
Those look like clean teeth - must not have been eating extra sugar!
Practitioner of the Carnivore diet...1 -
psychod787 wrote: »In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't think it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324078
Plain boiled potatoes can be highly filling for the calories. Potatoes have about 80 calories for a 100gram serving. Try a little experiment. Boil up 900 grams of potatoes and try to eat them plain. No salt, butter, nothing.... Tell me how many you can eat!
Also one of the food with the highest glycemic index and carb content, might want to say that to the low carbers.
And i'm not a good exemple I used to eat 700g of steamed potatoes with chicken.0 -
In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't think it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324078
I find baked potatoes plenty filling. I even splurge on a little butter and salt. Same with roasted potatoes. I don't usually boil 'em.
But....
A 150 gram has 26 grams of carbohydrate. Please explain how this is "almost all carbs." Yeah, I know; it's also made out of water. There's fiber in there and protein too.Are instant mashed potatoes close to that?
1 last flavored package and son didn't like the first one, I can finish it off on run day at least. Left over doesn't appear to work well with it.
This will be good test for me and high carb idea using potatoes.
For self-support multi-day kayak trips where I have to carry EVERYTHING in a whitewater boat for eight days, I would have some meals that were a package of those nasty instant mashed potatoes and a packet of fish. Worked for me. A better option is to make home-cooked meals twice as big as normal and dehydrate half. Weigh it before and after dehydrating to know how much water to add back. I digress. That's not necessarily potatoes, but it COULD be.
1 -
If we're talking about dry weight potatoes are 80-90% carbs.
And that's assuming you eat the skin, most people don't0 -
In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't think it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324078
I find baked potatoes plenty filling. I even splurge on a little butter and salt. Same with roasted potatoes. I don't usually boil 'em.
But....
A 150 gram has 26 grams of carbohydrate. Please explain how this is "almost all carbs." Yeah, I know; it's also made out of water. There's fiber in there and protein too.
100 g is 58 cals, of which about 48 are carbs and 10 are protein. That's about 83% of cals from carbs, so "almost all" seems not unfair, although I'd say "most."
2.5 g fiber, so, yeah, some.
I'm pro potato and find them satiating, even roasted with a bit of olive oil.4 -
In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't think it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324078
Carbs are the most filling macro for me, as long as they have at least a bit of fiber. It's fatty foods like cheese, nuts, chicken thighs, that I can easily overeat and still want more.
I understand not everyone would agree, but the low carb mantra that "everyone" eats less on low carb because fat is filling is a myth. "Some" people eat less on low carb and find fat filling. Maybe most do, I have no idea
I don't find sweet convenience foods filling, but I also rarely feel like overeating them.2 -
In a study they found that boiled potatoes were the most satiating food. I don't thldink it's the first that comes to mind when talking about satiating foods. Potatoes are almost all carbs.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324078
I find baked potatoes plenty filling. I even splurge on a little butter and salt. Same with roasted potatoes. I don't usually boil 'em.
But....
A 150 gram has 26 grams of carbohydrate. Please explain how this is "almost all carbs." Yeah, I know; it's also made out of water. There's fiber in there and protein too.
100 g is 58 cals, of which about 48 are carbs and 10 are protein. That's about 83% of cals from carbs, so "almost all" seems not unfair, although I'd say "most."
2.5 g fiber, so, yeah, some.
I'm pro potato and find them satiating, even roasted with a bit of olive oil.
Most, yes, on a calorie basis. I can go there. Almost all, I guess I can't quite go there.
I also would suggest that they are slow digesting carbs. An apple has a similar carb profile, but isn't as sating, at least to me, and the carbs are quicker digesting. I like apples, too, but it would be harder to make a meal of them than of potatoes. And I'd be hungry sooner.
I also use added sugars for some things, so I'm not a demonizer. I generally don't like sweets as much as savory things, but my grapes are just getting ripe, and they are sweet and delicious.
Interesting dialogue!1 -
if we do not eat enough sugar or sugar-polymers, or our bodies do not produce enough sugar, we die0
-
thakurhimanshi815 wrote: »if we do not eat enough sugar or sugar-polymers, or our bodies do not produce enough sugar, we die
For most of us, this doesn't require eating sugar. As you point out, our bodies will produce it for us. This is why carbohydrates are not considered an essential macronutrient.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »thakurhimanshi815 wrote: »if we do not eat enough sugar or sugar-polymers, or our bodies do not produce enough sugar, we die
For most of us, this doesn't require eating sugar. As you point out, our bodies will produce it for us. This is why carbohydrates are not considered an essential macronutrient.
I agree, not essential to survive. I would argue they are essential to thrive...5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »thakurhimanshi815 wrote: »if we do not eat enough sugar or sugar-polymers, or our bodies do not produce enough sugar, we die
For most of us, this doesn't require eating sugar. As you point out, our bodies will produce it for us. This is why carbohydrates are not considered an essential macronutrient.
I agree, not essential to survive. I would argue they are essential to thrive...
I think it would be very difficult to construct a healthful diet while eliminating carbohydrates, if not impossible. I am not advocating that people try to do this. But it isn't accurate to argue that we'll die if we don't eat enough sugar (I know you're not arguing this, another post did).4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »thakurhimanshi815 wrote: »if we do not eat enough sugar or sugar-polymers, or our bodies do not produce enough sugar, we die
For most of us, this doesn't require eating sugar. As you point out, our bodies will produce it for us. This is why carbohydrates are not considered an essential macronutrient.
I agree, not essential to survive. I would argue they are essential to thrive...
I think it would be very difficult to construct a healthful diet while eliminating carbohydrates, if not impossible. I am not advocating that people try to do this. But it isn't accurate to argue that we'll die if we don't eat enough sugar (I know you're not arguing this, another post did).
100%0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »thakurhimanshi815 wrote: »if we do not eat enough sugar or sugar-polymers, or our bodies do not produce enough sugar, we die
For most of us, this doesn't require eating sugar. As you point out, our bodies will produce it for us. This is why carbohydrates are not considered an essential macronutrient.
It is possible the point of it was that while intake of sugar is nonessential, from a biochemistry standpoint, sugar is essential to human life. That's fair for defending sugar of all kinds.
I do think there are people that think sugar is indefensible and hold rather stringent clean eating views that don't really understand or at least think about that deeper level of the chemistry. Pressed on a point like this, some of them will claim there is something different about the same chemical when it is refined versus when it is in vegetables or when it is produced in the body by gluconeogensis from protein.3
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 232.6K 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