Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Why do people keep defending sugar?

11011121416

Replies

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I once made a WFPB endurance fuel by blending some dates, lemon juice, and salt. It worked pretty well. I wrapped up individual servings in plastic wrap.

    But it didn't seem more effective than my usual Gu pack, so once I knew I could do it I just went back to the usual.

    I know for some people, the fiber in the dried fruit would be a problem. I think a baked sweet potato would be awesome during a long run. It would probably fit in my running vest, I may give it a try.

    I don't like sweet potatoes all that much, so the idea of carrying one around and eating it while running seems really unappealing, but try it and report back!

    I have used a banana right before a race to fuel (also orange juice, but not sure if the anti added sugar in all cases folks are okay with juice). Dried fruit like dried apricots seems appealing to me, but I'm not sure I could stomach it when running. For a bike ride, sure. I did a biking trip where we rode about 50-100 miles a day one time, and other long single day biking events, and while I'd usually get off the bike to eat, stuff like trail mix and fruit worked great.

    Frozen orange slices are great in the summer.

    I don’t see any nutritional benefit to eating savory starch rather than sugar, it’s refined carbs either way. Are there really people who have such a fetish about sugar that they would do this?

    Probably a few, but the main reasons I've seen given for starch vs sugar is that it is easier on the digestive system for some when working out.

    I think handling out frozen orange slices during a long race would be amazing.
  • rheddmobilerheddmobile Member Posts: 5,621 Member Member Posts: 5,621 Member
    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.
  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member
    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/
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 30,418 Member Member Posts: 30,418 Member
    psychod787 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.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    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.
    edited August 5
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 30,418 Member Member Posts: 30,418 Member
    lemurcat2 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?

    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.

    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.

    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.
    edited August 5
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 16,471 Member Member, Premium Posts: 16,471 Member
    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.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Member Posts: 5,544 Member Member Posts: 5,544 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    My money is on something genetic, or microbiome related.

    ^^^100%...

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    lemurcat2 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.
    edited August 5
  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member
    psychod787 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.
    AnnPT77 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

    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: :wink: :wink: :wink: :lol::lol::lol: 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!🤪
    edited August 5
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    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.
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 30,418 Member Member Posts: 30,418 Member
    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.

    edited August 5
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    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.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Member Posts: 1,198 Member Member Posts: 1,198 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.