Eek! Sugar!?

PaleoPath4Lyfe

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.

Acg67

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=rja

PaleoPath4Lyfe

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.

sunnyday789

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.

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/

HendersonDavid

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.

HendersonDavid

Above beat me to it.

dennydifferent

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?

dane11235813

interesting discussion...thanks for all the input

dennydifferent

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.

Cberg9

BAHAHAHAH Me too...Anyone else care to join

Cberg9

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 join

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?

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.

UponThisRock

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.

hottottie11

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.

r1ghtpath

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.

DL121004

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".

RonSwanson66

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.

DL121004

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.

RonSwanson66

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?

DL121004

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.