Eek! Sugar!?

wackyfunster

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.).

shydaisi

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?

DL121004

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/19151107

RonSwanson66

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.

Fructose/Blood Brain Barrier: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15111494

^^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.

tsh0ck

I like sugar.

RangerSteve

Not sure if it's been posted already:

Is Fructose Being Blamed Unfairly for Obesity Epidemic?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120221125020.htm

RonSwanson66

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.long

DL121004

"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.full

LOL

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.

RonSwanson66

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/

kcmg0730

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.

Acg67

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??

Go back and look at the forum and how many threads you see about ZOMG i'm going over my sugar count by 1g, will it effect my weight loss? What if i have an unclean food, will it make me stop losing weight? And other similar threads.

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 i'm willing to bet you're wrong or you wouldn't see half the questions that have been repeatedly asked and answered on the site.

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.

Spot on, the entire purpose was not to inform people that sugar is not the devil or singularly evil when pertaining to weight loss, but to condescend people who have cut sugar out their diet

Acg67

Sidesteal

Bump for Scott Herman's pawn.