Sugar types: It really does matter WHAT we eat

MistyMtnMan

Yes it does matter and just ignore the mockers. I limit my fruit intake to fruit like blueberries,strawberries and grapefruit. It really helps with fat loss! Have you heard the phrase "abs are made in the kitchen"? I also eat mostly Paleo. No grains and very few processed foods. Lot's of meat and vegetables.

Abs must be able to be made in the bakery too because I eat cookies and donuts almost daily BUT within reason. Nothing helps with fat loss OTHER than burning some good ol cals. Just stick within your calories and tweak your macros, it's not that difficult.

mmapags

Lolstig and Taubes?? Bwaaahhaaaaaaahaahaaahaaahaaaahaahaaa

MysteriousMerlin

Anytime I see caution against eating healthy real food like fruit (fructose), grains and legumes (paleo) or any vegetable (carrots and beets cuz they have a high GI) I want to scream.

For weight loss it is calories in vs calories out. They type of sugar eaten wont contribute more to weight gain. It's the quantity, not the quality eaten that will make you gain weigh or keep you from losing weight

For me personally, as long as I am not eating too many calories from fruit the more fruits and veggies I can eat the better. They contain not only vitamins and minerals, but antioxidents, phytochemicals including some that can act as antivirals and they haven't even discovered all the health benefits from plants!

Food is medicine

This!! *applause*

jillianbeeee

this one is controversial here on the threads. I watch my sugar intake and believe its part of my success so far. Not every one agrees. I think we are all different and it is important to find what works for us individually. My dad had diabetes and I was borderline when I was big so for me its a concern.

nomeejerome

aimforhealthy

Hi all,

I have heard/read a lot lately about how what we eat is the real problem, not so much the quantity that we eat (obviously quantity plays a part though).

One of the main things I have read about recently is that fructose (that innocent, NATURAL sugar) is actually the worst type of sugar for us to ingest if we are trying to lose weight. Apparently "after eating 120 calories of glucose, one calorie is stored as fat. After 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat." (link below) This is because of its structure, the fact that it is processed by the liver, and also that it is not controlled by insulin.

I found this very interesting article, which the above quotation is taken from, which has a LOT of information about sugar. It seems that fructose in whole (unprocessed) fruit is not as bad as in processed fruit and other liquid sources. http://www.inspirationgreen.com/all-the-different-sugars.html

I have also read recently that eating real food, i.e. non man made food, is good for losing weight and general health. Apparently we evolved to process natural foods, and eating things like bread means we can't process it properly. We just weren't made to process grains like that.

I think the paleo diet is along the same lines as this. While I am not going to limit myself to raw, natural foods, I am cutting out most processed foods (bread does make me feel bloated). I still eat things like soup though, as that fills you up, and I have found that half a packet of crisps satisfies a craving for fat, salt and carbs but is not too many calories. Soup (approx 100kcal), 1/2 pack crisps (aprox 70kcal) and a massive pile of salad for lunch is great

WTF is a "processed fruit"? Is that dried fruit? I need to know how you define processed and unprocessed because I take them fairly bluntly; ie: cutting up an apple makes the apple "processed".

Mostly I'm in to read later.

I'm for your GIF

I'm in for the ensuing "This is BS, here are peer-reviewed studies that prove it" links. I'm collecting those lately because the sugar whipping boy is out of control at this point. Everyone I know has bought into it.

Also I will see your Tom Hiddleston reaction GIF and raise you Liz Lemon, echoing what my actual reaction is to 99% of these threads.

Phoenix_Warrior

omg, I love you. There's gonna be a spider in there, isn't there?

brower47

Honey is high is fructose bad for weight loss!

eating more calories than you burn bad for weight loss!

^This.

I wish people would stop blaming the minutia for their lack of weight loss or their weight gain. In the absence of any medical condition, if you eat too many calories without expending that extra energy through activity, then you will gain weight.

STAHP the blame game and place it where it belongs, on individual, personal decisions.

tigersword

Hi all,

I have heard/read a lot lately about how what we eat is the real problem, not so much the quantity that we eat (obviously quantity plays a part though).

One of the main things I have read about recently is that fructose (that innocent, NATURAL sugar) is actually the worst type of sugar for us to ingest if we are trying to lose weight. Apparently "after eating 120 calories of glucose, one calorie is stored as fat. After 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat." (link below) This is because of its structure, the fact that it is processed by the liver, and also that it is not controlled by insulin.

I found this very interesting article, which the above quotation is taken from, which has a LOT of information about sugar. It seems that fructose in whole (unprocessed) fruit is not as bad as in processed fruit and other liquid sources. http://www.inspirationgreen.com/all-the-different-sugars.html

I have also read recently that eating real food, i.e. non man made food, is good for losing weight and general health. Apparently we evolved to process natural foods, and eating things like bread means we can't process it properly. We just weren't made to process grains like that.

I think the paleo diet is along the same lines as this. While I am not going to limit myself to raw, natural foods, I am cutting out most processed foods (bread does make me feel bloated). I still eat things like soup though, as that fills you up, and I have found that half a packet of crisps satisfies a craving for fat, salt and carbs but is not too many calories. Soup (approx 100kcal), 1/2 pack crisps (aprox 70kcal) and a massive pile of salad for lunch is great

If you are in a calorie deficit, ZERO calories of anything you eat will be stored as fat. Biology and math trump all these silly arguments.If i need 2000 calories a day to maintain, but eat 1500, ALL 1500 I eat get burned, PLUS 500 extra to make up the difference. Even if 40 calories of fructose get temporarily stored, they still get burned before the day is done, as part of the calories eaten, and you will still burn the 500 calories from fat deposits, ON TOP OF IT.

It's really not complicated.

We've also been eating bread for 30,000 years, our body can digest it quite easily, as it can with everything we eat, as we evolved the ability to digest, process, and use just about any energy source to survive. Plant, animal, mineral, processed or not, makes no difference to our digestive system.

ChristineinMA

Just wanted to drop in and say this thread is lame. Carry on.

AMEN!

Eat a variety of foods. Burn more than you take in. Done.

ldrosophila

I'm sure there are other who understand this more than myself, but the European Union has just come out with a proposal that fructose is the superior sweetener in products marketed to children d/t the fact fructose does not have the instantaneous effect on raising blood sugar as glucose or sucrose.

Anyways, I dont fall into the whole bad food good food bandwagon for some reason a few biochemistry, physiology, and anatomy classes do that to a person. Our monkey ancestors were eating just as many fruits, nuts, insects, and the occasional infant as anyone else.

cwolfman13

Damn, I'm late to the party again...

Will_Thrust_For_Candy

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't have eaten that Caramilk last night?

TX_Rhon

I have trouble choosing sugar types. .. do I want ice cream or a mocha latte?

These are the questions.

Latte!!! But I prefer the White Chocolate Mocha latte. :::inserting sarcasm now::: I obviously have a strange metabolism though because I still manage to drink them AND lose weight! Go figure......... :drinker:

darkangel45422

Hi all,

I have heard/read a lot lately about how what we eat is the real problem, not so much the quantity that we eat (obviously quantity plays a part though).

One of the main things I have read about recently is that fructose (that innocent, NATURAL sugar) is actually the worst type of sugar for us to ingest if we are trying to lose weight. Apparently "after eating 120 calories of glucose, one calorie is stored as fat. After 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat." (link below) This is because of its structure, the fact that it is processed by the liver, and also that it is not controlled by insulin.

I found this very interesting article, which the above quotation is taken from, which has a LOT of information about sugar. It seems that fructose in whole (unprocessed) fruit is not as bad as in processed fruit and other liquid sources. http://www.inspirationgreen.com/all-the-different-sugars.html

I have also read recently that eating real food, i.e. non man made food, is good for losing weight and general health. Apparently we evolved to process natural foods, and eating things like bread means we can't process it properly. We just weren't made to process grains like that.

I think the paleo diet is along the same lines as this. While I am not going to limit myself to raw, natural foods, I am cutting out most processed foods (bread does make me feel bloated). I still eat things like soup though, as that fills you up, and I have found that half a packet of crisps satisfies a craving for fat, salt and carbs but is not too many calories. Soup (approx 100kcal), 1/2 pack crisps (aprox 70kcal) and a massive pile of salad for lunch is great

Weight loss is about calories. Period.

Actually there is research starting to suggest that calories, while obviously very important in terms of weight loss/gain, isn't the whole story. For example, I've posted below a link to a story about a man who did a self-experiment. Eating the same amount of calories, he gained weight/inches differently based on the macros of the diet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html

Definitely not conclusive by any means but it's not the only thing suggesting that calories in/calories out isn't the whole story, end of story. Obviously if you're taking in hundreds or thousands of calories over maintenance every single day, you probably won't lose weight, but calories may not be the whole story.

bcattoes

OP, limit whatever you need to get to goal. If you limit only things you can do without once you reach goal, you'll have a better shot of being one of the minority that keeps it off long term.

But IMO it's best to let others decide what they need to limit. We are not all the same.

Showcase_Brodown

Actually there is research starting to suggest that calories, while obviously very important in terms of weight loss/gain, isn't the whole story. For example, I've posted below a link to a story about a man who did a self-experiment. Eating the same amount of calories, he gained weight/inches differently based on the macros of the diet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html

Definitely not conclusive by any means but it's not the only thing suggesting that calories in/calories out isn't the whole story, end of story. Obviously if you're taking in hundreds or thousands of calories over maintenance every single day, you probably won't lose weight, but calories may not be the whole story.

I'm not sure exactly why this guy got the results he did. It would be nice if it was an experiment with a sample size more than 1, and if we had some tidy statistics about body composition before and after each of the time periods, and what exactly he ate, about many calories he burnt each day, etc. Hard to say what the deal was. Certainly not conclusive.

I would venture to say that given a longer period of time, the results would basically even out and the determining factor on the weight would be, as always, calories in/out. That energy supply and demand in your body

Another note too, research Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF). Protein has a higher digestion and processing cost than both carbs and fat, so the calories OUT part of the equation would be higher for protein vs carbs/fat for the same number of calories.

And then there's always the question of what kind of weight is lost/gained. Water? Always confusing, as it has nothing to do with calories or actual energy containing weight. Muscle? Denser than fat, not sure how many calories a pound of it would "yield" or cost to create. Fat? Less dense than muscle, about 3500 calories in a pound of it. Eh... messy.

The point is, you gain with a surplus, and lose with a deficit.

tonynguyen75

Okay so we've covered that weightloss is cals in vs cals out. Can anyone tell me about maintaining and muscle gaining? Can sugar affect that?

No sarcastic and rude comments please, it's a genuine question and I would just like a genuine answer

Maintaining and muscle gaining is about macro composition as well as calories. On top of, of course, weight lifting.

LiftAllThePizzas

One of the main things I have read about recently is that fructose (that innocent, NATURAL sugar) is actually the worst type of sugar for us to ingest if we are trying to lose weight. Apparently "after eating 120 calories of glucose, one calorie is stored as fat. After 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat." (link below) This is because of its structure, the fact that it is processed by the liver, and also that it is not controlled by insulin.

Your body still needs to continue functioning and has to get the energy from somewhere. If you're in a caloric deficit, it doesn't matter whether the fat molecules you're burning came from the food you ate 5 minutes ago or 5 months ago.

magerum

OP, sorry but that's just nonsense.

This study showing that “reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

Or perhaps this study which found “diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.”- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101

Mull over the astounding results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Flexible dieting
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707550

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.

www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism


Here's studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference
An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.


Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.


Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.



No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

CONCLUSION:

This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.


Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

Summary

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation