Eek! Sugar!?

Acg67

Just a fun study since I see so much demonizing of sugar


Note the results of the diet that was 43% sucrose (table sugar)

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

Weight, REE, percentage total body fat, and percentage trunk body fat

Change in weight for the high- and low-sucrose groups across the course of the study is shown in Figure 1. There were
no significant differences between groups in mean weight, REE, percentage total body fat, or percentage trunk fat (Table
4). The time effect was significant for weight (P < 0.001, rı2 = 0.88), percentage total body fat (P < 0.001, rj2 0.51), percentage trunk fat (P < 0.001, rj2 0.50), REE (P < 0.001, ı2 0.54), and diastolic (P > 0.001, iı2 0.10) and systolic (P > 0.001, ı2 0.10) blood pressure; all scores decreased over the duration of the study. All group-by-time interactions were nonsignificant (Table 4), indicating that the groups did not differ in the magnitude of this decrease over the duration of the study, ie, there were no treatment effects. As also shown in Table 4, the proportion of variance explained by the interaction term was uniformly small for all variables.

Fasting glucose, TSH, FT3, and FT4

No significant group differences were found for fasting glucose, urine norepinephrine, TSH, VFı, or VF4 (Table 5).
There was a significant time effect for norepinephrine (P < 0.001, ı 0.15) and VF3 (P < 0.001, ij2 0.51), with concentrations decreasing over time. There was a small but significant increase over time in Ff4 (P = 0.001, ‘rj2 0.13). No significant group-by-time interactions were detected (Table 5).

Plasma lipids

Mean concentrations of fasting total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triacylglycerol were not significantly
different between groups (Table 6). The time effect was significant for all lipid measures: total cholesterol (P < 0.001, ı2 0.63), HDL cholesterol (P < 0.001, ij2 0.73), LDL cholesterol (P < 0.001, ‘q2 0.32), and triacyiglycerol (P 0.04, ı2 0.10). The time-by-group effect, however, was significant for total cholesterol (P = 0.009, ‘rı2 0.16) and LDL cholesterol (P = 0.014, ıj2 0.15), with the low-sucrose group exhibiting a larger decrease than the high-sucrose group for both of these measures (Table 6).

Psychologic and behavioral variables

There were no significant group differences in mean levels of hunger, negative affect, positive affect, depression, or anxiety,
or in the vigilance task (Table 7). The time effect was significant for negative affect (P < 0.001, tıj2 0.47), depression (P < 0.001, q2 0.29), positive affect (P < 0.001, ı 0.43), and the vigilance task (P = 0.005, q2 0.13), with all subjects improving on these measures. The time effect was also significant for hunger (P = 0.008, ij2 0.08); all subjects reported lower levels of hunger at the end of the study than at the beginning. No significant time-by-group interactions were detected.

[/quote]

nkziv

Interesting. This was also published in 1997. Assuming they were correct, I'm surprised more people don't know this. The fact that it was published in 1997 also gives me pause as to why more people don't accept the evidence established here. Have there been studies conducted in the past 15 years or so that have shown otherwise? I'd be curious to find out.

Sublog

1RD

nkziv

Another limitation of this study: it was only conducted over a 6-week time period. Long-term effects on weight or metabolism are left out of the picture. 0verall, not extremely convincing, although it raises some good questions.

Sidesteal

In.

nkziv

Also a small sample size of only like 22 people per experimental group.

Acg67

Another limitation of this study: it was only conducted over a 6-week time period. Long-term effects on weight or metabolism are left out of the picture. 0verall, not extremely convincing, although it raises some good questions.

Randomized controlled trial of changes in dietary carbohydrate/fat ratio and simple vs complex carbohydrates on body weight and blood lipids: the CARMEN study. The Carbohydrate Ratio Management in European National diets.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11093293?dopt=Abstract

6 month trial, fat loss ended up being similar and both diets lost weight and fat compared to the control group

DL121004

Another limitation of this study: it was only conducted over a 6-week time period. Long-term effects on weight or metabolism are left out of the picture. 0verall, not extremely convincing, although it raises some good questions.

Agreed.

Also, it compares sucrose with other carbs. I think many/most people that take issue with the general issue is macronutrient composition, which this study does not address.

Last, unless I am reading the report incorrectly, a very large percentage of the weight loss appears to be lean mass, not fat mass.

Acg67

Another limitation of this study: it was only conducted over a 6-week time period. Long-term effects on weight or metabolism are left out of the picture. 0verall, not extremely convincing, although it raises some good questions.

Agreed.

Also, it compares sucrose with other carbs. I think many/most people that take issue with the general issue is macronutrient composition, which this study does not address.

Last, unless I am reading the report incorrectly, a very large percentage of the weight loss appears to be lean mass, not fat mass.

That could prob be explained by the low protein intake, about 50g/day and they were 210lbs give or take.

The point being people have singled out sugar as some mystical and evil thing that can single handily prevent weight loss when dieting, when it really is about the calories

Sidesteal

Also, it compares sucrose with other carbs. I think many/most people that take issue with the general issue is macronutrient composition, which this study does not address.

Actually, I respectfully disagree on the above. I think most people who are well researched in nutrition would take issue with macronutrient composition because clearly that matters a great deal. But I think there are PLENTY of people who vilify sugar OUTSIDE of it's contribution to macronutrient intake, and the research somewhat addresses that by comparing it with another carb source.

Last, unless I am reading the report incorrectly, a very large percentage of the weight loss appears to be lean mass, not fat mass.

This would be expected given the conditions of the experiment.

DL121004

That could prob be explained by the low protein intake, about 50g/day and they were 20010lbs give or take.

The point being people have singled out sugar as some mystical and evil thing that can single handily prevent weight loss when dieting, when it really is about the calories

Agree re: protein intake; I noticed that.

I'm still on the fence with regards to the whole sugar/carb issue. I've read a lot on both sides and am just not sure of the definitive answer.

Maybe that's because, as complex an organism as the human body is, we're still learning. {shrug}

carrie_eggo

When I saw the title, before clicking, I thought to myself, "This has Acg written all over it." LoL

hpsnickers1

A 6 week study tells me nothing. The fructose alone will destroy the liver over decades (NAFLD).

I'll be reading this study thoroughly. I've already read quite a bit in the Intro and I'm already seeing some interesting info.

Sugar is an addictive poison. But it poisons your body over long-term - not within 6 weeks. And I'll have to check into the health of the subjects at the start of the study.

Even the major medical establishments are starting to use "addiction" when is comes to sugar. Sugar travels the same brain pathways as opiate drugs (like heroin). Grains contain exorphins which are morphine-like compounds. Also addictive.


Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.

DL121004

Actually, I respectfully disagree on the above. I think most people who are well researched in nutrition would take issue with macronutrient composition because clearly that matters a great deal. But I think there are PLENTY of people who vilify sugar OUTSIDE of it's contribution to macronutrient intake, and the research somewhat addresses that by comparing it with another carb source.

Maybe. I know there are a lot of "sugar is the devil" folks out there. And some say sugar is no different than "X".

I tend towards the middle.

In terms of energy, a Calorie is a Calorie. Having said that, there are other factors to consider, in my opinion. For example, fruit. While the sugar in fruit may be equivalent to the sugar in table sugar (in terms of pure macronutrient/energy), consuming the fruit is deemed healthier due to the micronutrients and the potential effects of things like fiber in the uptake of those sugars. Another example is fructose content, due to the alternate pathway (compared with glucose), which may prove to be problematic under certain conditions.

For a lean/moderately overweight person, much of this may not matter. Probably doesn't. The further beyond that you go, however, it may become an issue.

/still learning lots

Acg67

Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.

Obesity is the accumulation of excess body fat, and guess what you can get obese without a high carb diet

Sidesteal

My god, another sugar is poison claim.

DL121004

My god, another sugar is poison claim.

:laugh:

Reminds me of some other threads with regards to the toxicity of a substance is dose dependent.

Do I agree with some of the content of that post? Yes. Do I think it's true for all at every level of intake? No.

Sidesteal

In terms of energy, a Calorie is a Calorie. Having said that, there are other factors to consider, in my opinion. For example, fruit. While the sugar in fruit may be equivalent to the sugar in table sugar (in terms of pure macronutrient/energy), consuming the fruit is deemed healthier due to the micronutrients and the potential effects of things like fiber in the uptake of those sugars.

Micronutrients absolutely are relevant and in most cases, natural sugars will be accompanied by beneficial nutrients. But I think it's important to make this distinction rather than the sugar-alarmist claims.

Sidesteal

Reminds me of some other threads with regards to the toxicity of a substance is dose dependent.

Absolutely. Water is also poisonous at a certain dose.

msfit777

Sugar is my "poison" of choice and although I have cut back on it as I have pretty much everything to maintain a healthy weight as I get older, I will NEVER give it up completely. Not even for lent I saw a Dr. being interviewed who said sugar in moderation is like poison in moderation...so be it!

10acity

My god, another sugar is poison claim.

:laugh:

As much as I love MFP, I have never seen so much over-complication of a matter in my entire life as in all of the discussion here.

hpsnickers1

Both groups were eating pretty much the same amount of carbs (i.e. sugar). Although it looks like the low-sucrose group was eating about 300 more calories. Yet weight loss was about the same.


The subjects were in a pretty poor state of health. (BMI of 35). So of course there will be an improvement. They're going from poor health to sub-par health. If they stayed on this diet - either group - they would never get to optimal health. Eventually things would come to a grinding halt and then start heading back downhill.

icemaiden17_uk

bumping for later

Acg67

Both groups were eating pretty much the same amount of carbs (i.e. sugar). Although it looks like the low-sucrose group was eating about 300 more calories. Yet weight loss was about the same.


The subjects were in a pretty poor state of health. (BMI of 35). So of course there will be an improvement. They're going from poor health to sub-par health. If they stayed on this diet - either group - they would never get to optimal health. Eventually things would come to a grinding halt and then start heading back downhill.

Kj =/= Kcals (the diets differed by about 70kcal)

And this was not about if eating a diet consisting of 40% sucrose was healthy or not long term, but to show that all the demonizing and fear of sugar and how it has magical properties to stop weight loss in it's tracks is unfounded

hpsnickers1

Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.

Obesity is the accumulation of excess body fat, and guess what you can get obese without a high carb diet

Really? Because the only thing that affects my weight is carbs. I can't gain on protein/fat. I've tried. I can eat more than I burn of protein/fat and still not gain.

As long as insulin levels are elevated you aren't burning fat - you are storing it. And the Standard American Diet will ensure that your insulin levels stay elevated (eat something high-carb as soon as you wake up and eat something high-carb every few hours) Obesity is your body's inability to burn fat.

And if you spend some time on Pubmed you will find information regarding sugar addiction.

DL121004

And this was not about if eating a diet consisting of 40% sucrose was healthy or not long term, but to show that all the demonizing and fear of sugar and how it has magical properties to stop weight loss in it's tracks is unfounded

I think this is where a lot of the communication breaks down.

I think many people look at weight loss as not just pure weight loss, but a process to lose weight in a long-term healthy manner that has a high rate of long-term success (sustainability).

Sidesteal

Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.

Obesity is the accumulation of excess body fat, and guess what you can get obese without a high carb diet

Really? Because the only thing that affects my weight is carbs. I can't gain on protein/fat. I've tried. I can eat more than I burn of protein/fat and still not gain.

As long as insulin levels are elevated you aren't burning fat - you are storing it. And the Standard American Diet will ensure that your insulin levels stay elevated (eat something high-carb as soon as you wake up and eat something high-carb every few hours) Obesity is your body's inability to burn fat.

And if you spend some time on Pubmed you will find information regarding sugar addiction.

Are you familiar with this post that is supported by peer reviewed research?
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Additionally, short term insulin fluctuations are irrelevant for weight loss assuming a normally functioning metabolism (non diabetic). Fat oxidation exceeds fat storage when energy intake is below expenditure regardless of short term insulin fluctuation.

Also, I am interested in any research you have to support your position and I'm not saying this to get into a pissing match. I would really like to see what you have on this.

peacemongernc

Even the major medical establishments are starting to use "addiction" when is comes to sugar. Sugar travels the same brain pathways as opiate drugs (like heroin). Grains contain exorphins which are morphine-like compounds. Also addictive.

I've been wondering about this recently, I heard something like this mentioned on a TV news show while I was doing something else and it has been wandering through my brain ever since.

The assumption here is that sugar is addictive because it travels similar brain pathways as things we know are addictive. Could it be that the reason that opiates are so addictive is because they use similar pathways as a common nutrient, but don't behave in the body the way the nutrient (sugar) does? When we eat sugar, we have built in responses that make us aware that we have eaten something... so it makes sense that if something else is triggering the same brain pathways WITHOUT the physiological response that we get when we eat the sugar, that it would cause problems like addiction.

I KNOW NOTHING about this... my background is in philosophy, NOT nutrition, biology, or anything else that would be useful in this discussion. But it is just one of those things that wafted through my brain when I heard it.

Maybe the sugar isn't addictive just because it travels pathways opiates do... maybe opiates are addictive because they are piggybacking on pathways where they don't belong.

Thoughts?

Also, I think sucrose will eventually be found to be worse than other sugars, so I'm not arguing in favor of sugar... just wondering about the opiate/sugar comparison.

Shannon

peacemongernc

Sugar is my "poison" of choice and although I have cut back on it as I have pretty much everything to maintain a healthy weight as I get older, I will NEVER give it up completely. Not even for lent I saw a Dr. being interviewed who said sugar in moderation is like poison in moderation...so be it!

I would like to ask that Dr. a few things. The symptoms of having ingested many poisons are the same as the symptoms of having had a few alcoholic drinks. There is a reason for that. So, yeah, some poisons, in moderation, are fine. The problem with some poisons is that there are no benefits to ingesting them, and that the amount of them it takes to have negative health consequences is really low.

But yeah, even poison, in moderation, can have its place in a full and happy life. Chicken livers and beets, however, have no place in a full and happy life. LOL!

Acg67

The likelihood of you eating in a surplus and not gaining is as likely as you owning a pet unicorn.

And if obesity is your body's inability to burn fat, how did you get fat in the first place? From just eating carbs? How do you explain societies that have extremely high carb intake yet aren't obese?

badgerbadger1

I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.