Eek! Sugar!?
Replies
-
Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is a malnourishment problem. Most (not all) obese people are malnourished and don't eat as many calories as one thinks they do.............
Do you have any source information on this that doesn't come from Gary Taubes?
Yes, I have some studies that my Naturopathic Dr had given to me for a paper I am writing about obesity and how it relates to socioeconomics and malnutrition.
Unfortunately, I am at work at the moment and those studies are on my laptop at home.0 -
Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is a malnourishment problem. Most (not all) obese people are malnourished and don't eat as many calories as one thinks they do.............
When articles and studies say that malnutrition plays a part in obesity they are not referring to a lack of calories. They are referring to a lack of nutrients.
http://www.inch-aweigh.com/malnourished.htm
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/theme_news_detail.php?id=17071612&tab_id=17
Yes, I understand that, however there is plenty of documentation that shows most (NOT ALL) obese people actually do not consume as many calories as most people think they do just because they are fat.
When I was at my heaviest, I was barely eating. My doctor had put me on 1,000 calorie LOW FAT, HIGH CARB eating plan and I steadily gained weight.
It is not about the calories. It is all about the quality of food you eat. I eat more than double now of what I was eating when I was near 300 pounds.
The difference is I replaced the carbs, starch and sugar with Fat.
And there is lots of documentation that the obese in particular underestimate their own caloric intake
Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation
Scroll down to table 1 and pay particular attention to the results of the overweight
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obese underestimate caloric&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFAQFjAF&url=http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/permission/2007/CalorieUnderestimation-JMR2007.pdf&ei=SjNFT8LMDqbL0QH758iDBA&usg=AFQjCNErRjgqL6WWfDLtRDVJVIGhPSBj9w&cad=rja0 -
Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is a malnourishment problem. Most (not all) obese people are malnourished and don't eat as many calories as one thinks they do.............
I love how you make things up.
I have not made anything up.
The World Health Organization has added Obesity as a third type of malnutrition and it more less bounds to certain socioeconomic backgrounds more than others, which I have seen for myself first hand working with youth in the inner cities.0 -
Here you go, just saw it in the paper yesterday. Just skimmed it but it seems mostly caloric intake is the issue not specific carbs (as others have already pointed out)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.
:laugh:
Interesting conversation as a whole. I was talking this morning about sugar and how I believe (I would love to find a study that substantiates this) the the body metabolizes fructose differently than other glucose/sucrose compounds. I have a hard time believing that a non-manmade sugar (fructose) would be as bad for the human body as a manmade chemical. I attempt to watch my sucrose intake (not always successfully) because I think a diet saturated with these types of sugars is not healthy, but I refuse to limit my fruit consumption as long as it is part of a balanced diet.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500368_162-57381405/fructose-off-the-hook-for-overweight-and-obesity/0 -
This thread is just another 'come full circle' on calorie = calorie, insulin spikes and obesity.
I will say it does help unaware persons on recent, although 1997 is a long time ago, developments
in the fight of obesity and weight loss.
Also for Canadians on MFP, McMaster University has concluded a new 2012 study that entalls that fuctose isn't an evil sugar and doesn't contribute to obesity. I personnally have not read the study, because I already knew this from school.0 -
Above beat me to it.0
-
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?
You know this one Acg, you must do. The theory du jour is that sustained high levels of fructose damage the metabolism. Non-obese societies with high carb intake generally get their carbs from starch. Transplant any one of them into the West with access to candy and soda, they get obese.
I make no claim that this is correct, but this is a popular theory doing the rounds.
Do they get obese because of the candy and soda or do they get obese from consuming a surplus of calories? Or let's rephrase that, if they had the exact same maconutrient composition and calorie intake, but subbed out let's say sweet potatoes for pixi sticks, they would get fat?
Do they consume a surplus of calories because the candy and soda drive them to consume more candy and soda?0 -
interesting discussion...thanks for all the input0
-
i didn't read the entire thread. and i didn't really read the article that was originally posted. i'm in the school of thought that moderation is key to things like sugar ( and i'm talking like white, processed sugar, not naturally OCCURING sugar).
most of the people that i know that have issues with sugar are those that are very sensitive to the changes in behavior it can create. again, talking white processed sugar, not naturally occurring. i also know of people that are addicted to processed foods. and those are often higher in white sugar. i have friends that claim to be vegetarians, because they don't eat meats, but their diet is mainly white carbs, NOT veggies.
so, for me and my family we do "everything in moderation." our focus is to keep processed sugars low and naturally occurring higher. and balance out with healthy fats and proteins. once in awhile the kids end up on a sugar high, and it's just not pleasant. that's the MAIN reason for my not letting our house be a sugar free for all state......... none of my kids are over weight. infact they are ALL ( i have 5 of them) average or under average. my 10.5 yr old is the size of a 9 yr old. my 3 yr old son, is the size of a 2 yr old. so........
There's a great thread on here about cravings for sweet things. My pet theory (absolutely no science behind this at all) is that you're either a sugar-junkie type, or you're not. Some people can eat anything in moderation and be fine. Others of us- and I'd hazard a guess we're the seriously obese ones- simply lose control around such foods.
It's seemingly impossible to reconcile the two groups. Mildly overweight "normal" people eat occasional treats without any negative effects and so can't believe sugar is a problem for anyone. Hardcore, obese ex-sugar junkies will swear blind that they can't do moderation, and that cutting it out completely stopped their cravings and gave them control of their eating.
Both groups are right, and will argue til they're blue in the face that the other is wrong. That is the internetz in a nutshell.0 -
BAHAHAHAH Me too...Anyone else care to join0
-
I can eat more than I burn of protein/fat and still not gain.
BRB, getting ripped on 7,500 cals/day of steak and peanut butter
BAHAHAHA me too, anyone else want to join0 -
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?
You know this one Acg, you must do. The theory du jour is that sustained high levels of fructose damage the metabolism. Non-obese societies with high carb intake generally get their carbs from starch. Transplant any one of them into the West with access to candy and soda, they get obese.
I make no claim that this is correct, but this is a popular theory doing the rounds.
Do they get obese because of the candy and soda or do they get obese from consuming a surplus of calories? Or let's rephrase that, if they had the exact same maconutrient composition and calorie intake, but subbed out let's say sweet potatoes for pixi sticks, they would get fat?
Do they consume a surplus of calories because the candy and soda drive them to consume more candy and soda?
It is an interesting discussion, but in the end there is will power to prevent you from over consuming things. And I do think you are right there are some people that simply can't do moderation with certain foods, and again you'd come up with the same discussion of will power vs your body "forcing" you to consume more.0 -
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?
You know this one Acg, you must do. The theory du jour is that sustained high levels of fructose damage the metabolism. Non-obese societies with high carb intake generally get their carbs from starch. Transplant any one of them into the West with access to candy and soda, they get obese.
I make no claim that this is correct, but this is a popular theory doing the rounds.
Do they get obese because of the candy and soda or do they get obese from consuming a surplus of calories? Or let's rephrase that, if they had the exact same maconutrient composition and calorie intake, but subbed out let's say sweet potatoes for pixi sticks, they would get fat?
Do they consume a surplus of calories because the candy and soda drive them to consume more candy and soda?
It is an interesting discussion, but in the end there is will power to prevent you from over consuming things. And I do think you are right there are some people that simply can't do moderation with certain foods, and again you'd come up with the same discussion of will power vs your body "forcing" you to consume more.
IMO, between a decrease in tyroid output, drops in leptin, and rising cortisol, if you're trying to lose weight by "eating the right foods" (whatever this means to you), instead of calorie counting + will power, you've set yourself up for failure anyhow.0 -
Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is a malnourishment problem. Most (not all) obese people are malnourished and don't eat as many calories as one thinks they do.............
Or people in general are pretty bad at accurately reporting their food intake. People VASTLY underestimate their intake (and OVER estimate physical activity) as well as misunderstand portion sizes.
3000 calories adds up pretty quickly when you aren't paying attention.0 -
I think you're quite right!!
i'm pretty sure my kids would live on it, if i let them. i allow them to have sugar because my mom wouldn't allow it in the house while i was growing up and i know that i would devour it when i was out of the house. so, i make sure my kids get it, but in moderation. i only really worry about the sugar highs. not about them having it in general.
we do know a lot of families that are sugar free. but, it's not because of obesity or worry about weight gain. it's all about their kids' behavior and outbursts. again, i'm talking white sugar mainly found in processed foods. not the sugars that occur naturally in things :-)
my mom has always had a weight issue. always. and i she has battled binge eating for as long as i can remember. she is definitely affected by sugar and cravings. she cannot do sugar in moderation. once she starts, it's like she can't stop :-(
There's a great thread on here about cravings for sweet things. My pet theory (absolutely no science behind this at all) is that you're either a sugar-junkie type, or you're not. Some people can eat anything in moderation and be fine. Others of us- and I'd hazard a guess we're the seriously obese ones- simply lose control around such foods.
It's seemingly impossible to reconcile the two groups. Mildly overweight "normal" people eat occasional treats without any negative effects and so can't believe sugar is a problem for anyone. Hardcore, obese ex-sugar junkies will swear blind that they can't do moderation, and that cutting it out completely stopped their cravings and gave them control of their eating.
Both groups are right, and will argue til they're blue in the face that the other is wrong. That is the internetz in a nutshell.0 -
Here you go, just saw it in the paper yesterday. Just skimmed it but it seems mostly caloric intake is the issue not specific carbs (as others have already pointed out)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500368_162-57381405/fructose-off-the-hook-for-overweight-and-obesity/
That study does *precisely* nothing to let fructose off the hook.
1. From the article: "However, the authors acknowledge that many of the studies they reviewed had serious shortcomings. Therefore, their conclusions are, in a word, inconclusive."
2. They are, like many here, only looking at "it's a matter of Calories", not the metabolic impact of those nutrients outside of energy balance. For example, does fructose impact your overall system in a way that makes you desire to eat more? The answer appears to be "yes". Does fructose have a negative impact on a whole variety of other health issues due to Advanced Glycation Endproducts? The answer appears to be "yes". Does fructose appear to have a negative impact on uric acid levels? The answer appears to be "yes".0 -
Here you go, just saw it in the paper yesterday. Just skimmed it but it seems mostly caloric intake is the issue not specific carbs (as others have already pointed out)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500368_162-57381405/fructose-off-the-hook-for-overweight-and-obesity/
That study does *precisely* nothing to let fructose off the hook.
1. From the article: "However, the authors acknowledge that many of the studies they reviewed had serious shortcomings. Therefore, their conclusions are, in a word, inconclusive."
2. They are, like many here, only looking at "it's a matter of Calories", not the metabolic impact of those nutrients outside of energy balance. For example, does fructose impact your overall system in a way that makes you desire to eat more? The answer appears to be "yes". Does fructose have a negative impact on a whole variety of other health issues due to Advanced Glycation Endproducts? The answer appears to be "yes". Does fructose appear to have a negative impact on uric acid levels? The answer appears to be "yes".
LULZ
The burden of proof falls on those making the claim. If you actually believe teh frucktoez is da devil, please provide any RELEVENT evidence to support your claim.
Hint: Rat studies where they were fed the equivalent of 1,000 diet sodas/day don't count.0 -
LULZ
Ignored.The burden of proof falls on those making the claim. If you actually believe teh frucktoez is da devil, please provide any RELEVENT evidence to support your claim.
Re my point 1. The authors of the study acknowledged its weakness and that it was inconclusive.
Re my point 2. Really? You are not aware of this? Really??Hint: Rat studies where they were fed the equivalent of 1,000 diet sodas/day don't count.
Take it up with the entire research community.0 -
LULZ
Ignored.The burden of proof falls on those making the claim. If you actually believe teh frucktoez is da devil, please provide any RELEVENT evidence to support your claim.
Re my point 1. The authors of the study acknowledged its weakness and that it was inconclusive.
Re my point 2. Really? You are not aware of this? Really??
Do you understand what burden of proof means?
The fructose alarmists are the one's making the positive claims, the burden lies upon them to support it.Hint: Rat studies where they were fed the equivalent of 1,000 diet sodas/day don't count.
LULZ
You actually believe that rat studies that use unrealistic dosages are in any way relevant to humans? Really?0 -
The fructose alarmists are the one's making the positive claims, the burden lies upon them to support it.
Okay ,so you aren't familiar with these basics.
I'm away from my research right now and will post later.0 -
I notice that the caloric intake between the two groups actually differed by ~6% (the high sucrose group being lower). This suggests that, if there was indeed no difference in change in weight between the two groups, that there is a substantial disparity between net usable calories. I would be interested to see if this disparity can be explained by differences in thermic effect in sucrose vs. starch.
Definitely agree that net caloric intake and macros are more important than sugar vs. starch. TEF does seem to be a significant factor in overall caloric balance, however, and there are definite disparities between e.g. sugar and whole grain. IMO there is more than just 'calories in and calories out' but that 'more' isn't more than 10-15% of total caloric intake, and is primarily based upon TEF rather than metabolic factors, barring extreme cases (extended periods of extremely low caloric intake, thyroid issues, etc.).0 -
The fructose alarmists are the one's making the positive claims, the burden lies upon them to support it.
Okay ,so you aren't familiar with these basics.
I'm away from my research right now and will post later.
Are you referring to high-fructose substances like corn syrup or to naturally occurring fructose?0 -
Do you understand what burden of proof means?
Not quite how it works in research.
There is a hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. They each need to either be proved or disproved. Quite oddly, you are relying on a study whose authors both acknowledge how weak the study is and conclude that it is, well, inconclusive.
The specifics of my 2nd point.
A. For example, does fructose impact your overall system in a way that makes you desire to eat more? The answer appears to be "yes"."
Fructose/Leptin: http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/6/2963.full.pdf
Fructose/Blood Brain Barrier: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15111494
B. Does fructose have a negative impact on a whole variety of other health issues due to Advanced Glycation Endproducts? The answer appears to be "yes".
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/105687279400022G
C. Does fructose appear to have a negative impact on uric acid levels? The answer appears to be "yes".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/191511070 -
Do you understand what burden of proof means?
Not quite how it works in research.
There is a hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. They each need to either be proved or disproved. Quite oddly, you are relying on a study whose authors both acknowledge how weak the study is and conclude that it is, well, inconclusive.
YOU Are making the positive claim (fructose is harmful). The burden of proof falls on YOU to support it. "Inconclusive" means that there is NO REASON to believe the claim.
The specifics of my 2nd point.
A. For example, does fructose impact your overall system in a way that makes you desire to eat more? The answer appears to be "yes"."
Fructose/Leptin: http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/6/2963.full.pdf
Incredibly small sample (12 ppl), combined with an intervention that is in no way relevant to normal dietary conditions (pure fructose vs pure glucose). Nearly ALL fructose consumption is approximately 50/50 fructose/glucose.
^^The word "fructose" does not occur a single time in the full text ^^B. Does fructose have a negative impact on a whole variety of other health issues due to Advanced Glycation Endproducts? The answer appears to be "yes".
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/105687279400022G
In vitro? Really?
How is this in any way relevant to dietary consumption?C. Does fructose appear to have a negative impact on uric acid levels? The answer appears to be "yes".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151107
LOL
The article relies on rat studies and/or ridiculously high doses.
ie:For example, very high doses of fructose (250 g/d × 7 d) cause insulin resistance in 1 wk (147), whereas slightly lower doses (216 g/d for 4 wk) only induce insulin resistance at sites where fructokinase is highly expressed (liver and adipocyte) (148), and even lower doses (100 g/d × 4 wk) result in no insulin resistance at all (149). In subjects with underlying insulin resistance or obesity, the ability of fructose to induce insulin resistance can be shown with diets as low as 15% fructose (67) or 25% fructose (150).
Are you serious???
Given that fructose, in nearly all cases, is paired with an equal part glucose you're talking about ludicrous amounts of sugar:
250g/day fructose = 500g/day sugar = 2000 calories from sugar.
15% fructose = 30% of your diet in the form of sugar.
NO *kitten* this will cause issues, but this is NOT RELEVANT to normal consumption.
Context matters.0 -
I like sugar.0
-
Not sure if it's been posted already:
Is Fructose Being Blamed Unfairly for Obesity Epidemic?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120221125020.htm0 -
More:Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolicupset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed asthe sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that thecommon fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption.
White JS. Straight Talk About High-Fructose Corn Syrup: What it is and What it Ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1716S.long0 -
"Inconclusive" means that there is NO REASON to believe the claim.
Sorry, but you don't get to make stuff up.
From the article:
""Is fructose really the source of all metabolic evil?" says researcher John Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. "From our standpoint, it does not look like it is."
However, the authors acknowledge that many of the studies they reviewed had serious shortcomings. Therefore, their conclusions are, in a word, inconclusive."
"Their conclusions" -- that "it does not look like (fructose really is the source of all metabolic evil) it is" -- are "inclusive."
Yet you rely on it.
Go figure.Incredibly small sample (12 ppl), combined with an intervention that is in no way relevant to normal dietary conditions (pure fructose vs pure glucose). Nearly ALL fructose consumption is approximately 50/50 fructose/glucose.
You are missing the point entirely. The point is that the metabolism of fructose is different than glucose.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/4/537.long
<snip>
The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain.
<snip>The word "fructose" does not occur a single time in the full text
Once again, you are missing the whole point. Unless you really don't understand these basics.
The title of my reference is "Triglycerides induce leptin resistance at the blood-brain barrier". See above for fructose favoring de novo lipogenesis.In vitro? Really?
How is this in any way relevant to dietary consumption?
Fine.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/114/6/597.fullLOL
The article relies on rat studies and/or ridiculously high doses.
Fine.
http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
Just FYI, I expect to be done on this thread with this post. I often bow out after I've made my point. It's up to the reader to make their own decisions.0 -
Oh the hilarity.
RAT studies with ridiculously high intakes of pure fructose are in NO WAY RELEVANT to human consumption. Period.
Show me a single study that compares isocaloric intakes, with varying amounts of fructose, on HUMAN subjects or STFU.
Further reading:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/0 -
Please explain to me how this thread is supportive and/or helpful for the people who are using this site?? And, exactly who asked for this information??
I appreciate the fact that there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that sugar is fine in moderation. But I'll bet for every study that says it's fine, there is at least one that refutes that. Same with any other diet out there in the wide world. Science is not as black and white as we'd all like to think, new discoveries are made every day, so really, we should all take the research we read with a grain of salt and make our own decisions.
I am willing to bet that every person using this site has read a wide range of information to find a nutritional and fitness plan that they think will work for them. And, many people probably find that some of those things DO work for them. Well, then, isn't the point of this forum to suuport our fitness efforts and have some dialogue about what's working without a one sized fits all approach? Of course people are going to be evangelical about what works for them...so let them, and know that you are making a different choice. It doesn't mean you have to follow what others are doing, but being part of this forum means that you should make some effort to be supportive.
The whole purpose of this thread was to condescend those who are making the choice, right or wrong, to eliminate sugar to reach their health goals. Unsolicited reseach and advice really have no place here, and doesn't support or motivate people. If someone asks for some information, then it's appropriate, but doing it just to be 'right' is not what these discussion boards are all about.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions