Obesity is caused by too much sugar not ingesting fat!

mulderpf

Deadvim, what chevy88grl is getting at is that you cannot make a generalisation that obesity is caused by too much sugar and leave it at that.

My weight gain was caused by drinking too much beer and wine together with a normal calorie intake every day. Each person has their own story, it's not a simple "oh, people are fat because they eat sugar and avoid fat", some people are fat because they eat too much, some people are fat because they have a medical issue, some people are fat because the lack self-control, some people are fat because they aren't active enough.

celebrity328

I Suffer from PCOS, and been told carbs are not good for because of it, what have you heard regarding woman struggling to lose weight with PCOS?

I also have PCOS and try the SAD and lost 3lbs in 5 months doing it (no cheating and following my doctors advise.)

Switched my diet to 20 grams of carbs a day and Ive lost almost 34lbs in the last 3 months ! I would say it really depends on what type of health concerns you have, such as Insulin resistance/hyperinsulin which is something that almost always accompanies PCOS. Many women on MFP who have PCOS have said that their doctors have told them that low carb diets are the only way they will lose weight. I dont know if thats true for all women, however its true for me

Hope that is helpful if you have anymore questions feel free to ask

yarwell

your body can create a fatty acid using three glucose molecules

triglycerides, presumably ? as measured in the bloodstream.

yarwell

We also know that high-protein diets such as Atkins, however, while being great for weight loss initially, raise the specter of long-term health complications from too much protein

"We" don't know that, because Atkins is not a high protein diet plan. It's a sensible amount of protein plan, and a high fat plan.

texastango

We also know that high-protein diets such as Atkins, however, while being great for weight loss initially, raise the specter of long-term health complications from too much protein

"We" don't know that, because Atkins is not a high protein diet plan. It's a sensible amount of protein plan, and a high fat plan.

Agree with this statement. The problem is generally not in the high protein. It's the high fat that causes the issue as I alluded to before.

bazfitness

@Cristofori44
Interesting.... but I'm questioning some of what you say, not cause I totally disagree, just because I'm a skeptic and what you're saying doesn't tie in with what I've read before... not saying you're wrong just want to get into the nitty gritties a bit more .....

diet such as Paleo because agriculture has been around well before the dawn of civilization, and most people in the Paleolithic era died in their 30s. There is also evidence that Paleo people ate grain and that human biology evolved to handle grains.

Agriculture from what I've learned has been around since the very first towns and not before (Not sure if first towns classifies as dawn of civilization or not but it's certainly a precursor)... latest evidence points to modern day Turkey roughly 11,000 years ago. It appears to be pretty much post Ice Age anyway. It's when human kind first started cultivating grains. Before this time I would have thought grain eating was at best minimal but if you got evidence to show otherwise i'd be interested to read.

As for most people dying in their 30s in the paleo era - this is true from what I've read. However it's hardly surprising. It would have been a tough life back then. All kinds of dangers - animals and other humans, less medicines to protect from disease, shortage of food, it's why the human population was very small until we settled in towns and started relying on mass production of food (grains and livestock). so food was now in relatively plentiful supply, people were more secure in walled protection from both animals and other humans. However.... more food didn't necessarily mean better food, there is also evidence that people got much smaller physically when the hunter gatherer lifestyle ended (I'm going to look that up after just to be sure)

If humans didn't evolve to eat grains, you wouldn't have people in Italy and Crete--where their diet consists of roughly 50 percent whole grains--living to be 100.

Humans in Mediterranean might actually be more adapted to grains than other parts of the world. Farming didn't reach Western Europe until thousands of years later. This has been cited as a possible explanation for the high incidence of coeliac disease (intolerance for gluten) the further west you go in Europe. In Ireland where I'm from I believe we have the highest incidence of this disease. Several members of my family have this condition. I have been tested and luckily I don't, but i do feel that wheat has a negative effect on me, particularly bloating and have virtually cut it out from my diet.

We also know, from extensive study of the Mediterranean region, that they are much healthier than the U.S. and have much lower rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease than in the U.S.--despite the Mediterranean region eating heaploads of grain.

Correlation does not always mean causation. Let's be honest here. Bad diet is a particular phenomenon of the Western world, and what country epitomises the western world more than any is the US. I'm not having a crack shot at you guys but the truth is the average diet in America is terrible in many ways, the amount of sugar you consume in particular. Perhaps, and just perhaps that is a far bigger reason for cardiovascular disease in the U.S than not eating enough grains!

texastango

Why, when you saw you were getting bigger why did you not just adjust back? I didn't either.

What if specific things that you consumed had a fundamental effect on how your body dealt with them? Not just 'too much of everything'.

What if those specific things are also the key to returning to a healthy weight? Not just 'eating less and exercising more'.

What if it isn't just about energy?

How does creating a xxxxx calorie deficit help optimum weight loss if your body does not want to burn fat? It doesn't.

We should sort the metabolism out first then worry about any kind of fairyland 3500 calorie/1lb of fat fantasy (which will not work consistantly even with a fully working metabolism).

Focussing on calories as the be all and end all is doing ourselves a disservice and just creating false hope for long term weight management.

And there is another wall of text, sorry short attention span people

Oh, and I had such high hopes when I started to read this..and then.....

If I am interpreting this set of statements correctly, it actually has a good point...and I'll try and crystalize it if I might (DeadVm - correct me if I'm wrong about your intent...).

---

Based on actually studies (that have been repeatedly reproduced in children and adults) DeadVm is correct when he alludes to Calorie restriction / energy consumption - is not the only answer to everything. I would argue though - that it is the key to Weight loss or gain.

What has been shown is that Weight Loss is not necessary to reverse things like Metabolic Syndrome - a host of medical risk factors for heart disease such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol.

Studies showed that weight loss did help reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome - but many of them didn't control for diet. They simply showed if you lost weight....you had a lower risk of diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol.

Interestingly, several studies of children and adults revealed that many of the adults and nearly all the children could be taken off medication for diabetes and hypertension if they were placed on a "CALORIE UNRESTRICTED" diet of healthy foods - fish, nuts, vegetables rich in omega 3 etc - even though the groups as a whole revealed "NO WEIGHT CHANGE" from pre-diet weights.

This suggests that it's not always weight loss that helps fix your problem, it could be mearly a change in diet. Indeed, not all weight loss is good! Losing LBM (lean body mass) - ie muscle - has been shown to be associated with a number of increased risks of illness. So losing weight isn't necessarily the ticket.....it's losing fat mass while retaining lean body mass or muscle mass.

Clear as mud? or make some sense?


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods

yarwell

Agree with this statement. The problem is generally not in the high protein. It's the high fat that causes the issue as I alluded to before.

It is worth pointing out that Atkins dieters generally have good total / HDL cholesterol ratios and hence reduced risk of CVD. Many report reductions in total cholesterol through reduced carbs.

That and the waning of the lipid hypothesis mean the fat content isn't something to keep me awake at night.

jaded_rose

bump

bazfitness

I mentioned in my last post that I had read that hunter gatherers were bigger than their descendants and noticeably shrunk after the adoption of farming and the ensuing growth in consumption of grains. here's some links to that evidence

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-connection-between-height-and-health/#axzz22HaBGSaG

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

Cristofori44

Agriculture from what I've learned has been around since the very first towns and not before (Not sure if first towns classifies as dawn of civilization or not but it's certainly a precursor)... latest evidence points to modern day Turkey roughly 11,000 years ago. It appears to be pretty much post Ice Age anyway. It's when human kind first started cultivating grains. Before this time I would have thought grain eating was at best minimal but if you got evidence to show otherwise i'd be interested to read.

As I understand it, agriculture really made possible civilization as we know it, since people didn't have to move around all the time looking for food and could settle in towns. It is almost a necessary pre-condition of civilization, but I'll defer to any anthropologists perusing the thread.

As for most people dying in their 30s in the paleo era - this is true from what I've read. However it's hardly surprising. It would have been a tough life back then. All kinds of dangers - animals and other humans, less medicines to protect from disease, shortage of food, it's why the human population was very small until we settled in towns and started relying on mass production of food (grains and livestock). so food was now in relatively plentiful supply, people were more secure in walled protection from both animals and other humans. However.... more food didn't necessarily mean better food, there is also evidence that people got much smaller physically when the hunter gatherer lifestyle ended (I'm going to look that up after just to be sure)

I think you're correct but two points: You can't prove the long-term health benefit of a diet when most of the culture dies off in their 30s. The name of the nutrition game is really longevity and health, so even if they died from other factors, there's no data that their diet long-term is beneficial. There is also evidence that Paleo individuals did in fact have disease.

I think you're right about height, but over generations it came back up for most populations with better nutrition. You'll find lower heights in third-world countries where nutrition is poor and some heights that exceed Paleo standards in parts of Europe. The Dutch are notorious for being tall sons-of-*****es and they eat cheese and bread--both no-nos on most Paleo plans. I will bet you anything though, you will find they are not extracting nutrients out of the grain, eating fake cheese, and their portion control and activity levels are much better than here in the U.S.

Humans in Mediterranean might actually be more adapted to grains than other parts of the world. Farming didn't reach Western Europe until thousands of years later. This has been cited as a possible explanation for the high incidence of coeliac disease (intolerance for gluten) the further west you go in Europe. In Ireland where I'm from I believe we have the highest incidence of this disease. Several members of my family have this condition. I have been tested and luckily I don't, but i do feel that wheat has a negative effect on me, particularly bloating and have virtually cut it out from my diet.

Perhaps so for Mediterraneans being more adapted to grain; but here in the U.S. it strikes just 1 percent of the population.
http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_007937.pdf

While I agree strongly that gluten-free products should be available, it shouldn't be at the expense of 99 percent of the population that benefits from whole grains.

Correlation does not always mean causation. Let's be honest here. Bad diet is a particular phenomenon of the Western world, and what country epitomises the western world more than any is the US.

Correlation is not causation, no, but if grains are as toxic as Paleo folks claim, you simply cannot explain the longevity and low rates of obesity in Mediterranean areas that are so dependent on grain. I don't think there's a way around it.

Also, not quite sure that bad diet is a Western phenomenon. You do have malnutrition in the developing world, for instance, and a Paleo advocate would hold that a Mediterranean diet is horrendous for one's health. But the U.S. I agree is an example of the disease of excess--highly-processed foods, sedentary lifestyles, and also I think a touch of foodmaking as profit--the nutrients are taken from the bread to increase shelf life, for instance.

bazfitness

@Cristofori44

Interesting points.

In regards to agriculture - specifically grain cultivation it necessitated staying in one place and therefore settlements. So yeah I guess it is a necessary pre-condition but the onset of towns and agriculture sort of go hand in hand and surely follows in human historical terms in the blink of an eye after! But yeah I'll defer to any anthropologists perusing the thread also

The thing is what I don't get is surely there must be a particular diet (not diet as in losing weight but as in regular healthy eating diet) which is optimal for the 'average' man. Obviously certain conditions like diabetes or genetic prediposal to certain diseases or cancers might need tweaking of these parameters. This does not seem like rocket science to me if some orgainsation or even knowledgeable individual did an in depth study, so why are they so many myriad different opinions out there. Actually I'm sure the info is out there already but there's so much BS that it's hard to know what to believe. I really think there has been too much input from people and organisations with dollars in mind over any concern for our health and the waters have well and truly been muddied.

No wonder so many of us are confused.

My best guess for a healthy diet and it's only a guess

GOOD FOOD
Fish
Meat - Lean white meat being better but moderate amounts of red meat also
Nuts
Vegetables
Berries
Seeds
Healthy oils

BAD FOOD
Processed Food
White Bread

STUFF I CONSUME BUT I'M UNSURE OF
Fruit
Dairy in moderation

STUFF I RARELY CONSUME BUT I'M UNSURE OF
Wholegrain Cereals
Brown Rice

I haven't read the paleo diet btw - but think I've sort of gravitated that way but really I'm just a guy trying to do his best with the information at hand.

TheVimFuego

Deadvim, what chevy88grl is getting at is that you cannot make a generalisation that obesity is caused by too much sugar and leave it at that.

My weight gain was caused by drinking too much beer and wine together with a normal calorie intake every day. Each person has their own story, it's not a simple "oh, people are fat because they eat sugar and avoid fat", some people are fat because they eat too much, some people are fat because they have a medical issue, some people are fat because the lack self-control, some people are fat because they aren't active enough.

Point taken, I guess my angle is more about optimising the body to get rid of the fat, metabolically.

Which, to me, seems to be related to cutting the sugars and starches, the things that, generally, are more likely to make us fat than pigging out on steak, say.

TheVimFuego

Agree with this statement. The problem is generally not in the high protein. It's the high fat that causes the issue as I alluded to before.

It is worth pointing out that Atkins dieters generally have good total / HDL cholesterol ratios and hence reduced risk of CVD. Many report reductions in total cholesterol through reduced carbs.

That and the waning of the lipid hypothesis mean the fat content isn't something to keep me awake at night.

Dietary fat doesn't bother either but you are making the assumption that having 'high' cholesterol is a reliable marker for CVD.

ctooch99

Nothing like "Bro-Vice" on the forums... Obesity is caused by overeating and leading a sedentary lifestyle...

cramernh

Agree with this statement. The problem is generally not in the high protein. It's the high fat that causes the issue as I alluded to before.

It is worth pointing out that Atkins dieters generally have good total / HDL cholesterol ratios and hence reduced risk of CVD. Many report reductions in total cholesterol through reduced carbs.

That and the waning of the lipid hypothesis mean the fat content isn't something to keep me awake at night.

Im sitting here with proof in the form of my most recent labs that anyone on a low-carb/Atkins approach can have excellent CHO readings.

I have been without bread, rice, pasta, corn, flour due to extreme/significant medical problems. Ive been on a high protein/fat intake for almost a year now and my liver and kidneys are fully functional, within normal limits. I have very little carb intake but it always comes from fresh vegetables....

Once my scanner is up and running, Ill post my labs... The Endocrinologist that I not only work with but also see as a patient, recommends this for all of her diabetics, PCOS patients, HTN and most Thyroid patients.

Currently my CHO readings are:

Total CHO 176 (norm is 125-200mg/dL)
HDL 74 (norm is > OR = 46mg/dL)
TRI 112 (norm is <150mg/dL)
LDL 80 (norm is <130mg/dL)

Ratio 2.4 (norm is < OR =5.0)

Fasting glucose is 88 (65-99mg/dL)
A1c 5.2 (<5.7% of total Hgb)

Im not particularly a fan of the original post simply because its promoting an "Across the board" statement. No one's health is going to follow that belief. There are too many parameters to consider and to think that this across-the-board paradigm is the optimal method in any such weight loss or health boost is just sheer nonsense.

We are all different, presenting with different body compositions and chemical makeups.

If I were to have 60% carbs per day, I would be in the hospital with Insulin Shock - my pancreas does not 'shut off'....

How about - we consider this:

Everyone is different (common sense dont you think?), everyone's dietary needs will be different because we are different from one another (again, common sense)... how about so long as we are doing this in a healthy manner, perhaps get some medical specialists involved out there who truly do know what they are doing, let's consider THAT to be the best way.

Getting personal and customized plans-of-attack in place based on our individual medical needs at the time we are evaluated.... seems to me that is best thing everyone can do for theirselves.

I cant emphasize that enough to my own patients where I work - it makes fighting their insurances so much easier for me when I need to get additional services approved so they can get better and more healthier.

MessyLittlePanda

Coeliac disease is in fact on the rise in Italy, Spain and France. Perhaps because they are refining their grains more than they did previously - the refining of grains as well as pesticides additives and chemicals is one theory as to why it's on the rise, along with allergies and intolerances to wheat.

Asians don't seem to be fat, and certainly for poorer communities, their diet is very high in grain, particularly rice, sorghum, corn and millet in Chinese regions. Wheat doesn't feature hugely in the diets of Chinese and South East Asian populations, although it is more part of the diet in the Indian subcontinent. However, I don't think they are as reliant on wheat as Europeans and Americans are - not only do we eat bread, pasta etc but we use it in all kinds of processed products as a thickener etc.

I don't wholly buy into Paleo, but I think there are some principles of it that are probably true - avoiding things that are highly processed and nutritionally have little value for instance, such as sweets (primarily sugar and chemicals) and fast food, and eating things that are as close to their natural state as possible. But we have busy lives these days, most of us are balancing work, family, domestic life, hobbies etc in a way that our ancestors weren't, so convenience is sometimes a necessity for many of us.

PNJB796

Despite the volume of contra-indicated views from other members, I would, (as a newly diagnosed Type II diabetic), like to thank you for the easily understood process you describe, which has allowed me to understand what my body is doing. The alternative views expressed by others has got me bewildered as to veracity, but the basic understanding you have given has helped a huge amount. The detail, I will no doubt acquire in due course. Thank You.

yarwell

Dietary fat doesn't bother either but you are making the assumption that having 'high' cholesterol is a reliable marker for CVD.

No, I was actually referring to the ratio of total to HDL, which is the basis of CVD risk charts in common use (even if they are flawed, which they may be). http://www.bhsoc.org/Cardiovascular_Risk_Prediction_Chart.stm

I'm relaxed about high total cholesterol if it has high HDL in it, in fact I'm pretty relaxed about cholesterol altogether - first time I had it measured was when I was 50 !

Sublog

I'm going to make my attempt at explaining how sugar/carbohydrates are used by our bodies. Let go to the regulation of sugar in our bodies. The pancreas produces insulin in cells called Islets of Langerhans. When these cells don't secrete any insulin the that is what is called Type 1 Diabetes or Juvenille Diabetes. When some insulin is produced but not enough to keep up with the body's demands it is Type 2 Diabetes.

Our bodies need our diet to be 60% carbohydrate, which when carbohydrates break down to their very basic component it becomes sugar. Sugar needs to get into our cells to give us energy. In order for sugar to get into our cells from the extracellular fluid in our bodies we need insulin to carry it across the cell membrane. When sugar can't get into the cell, it accumulates in the extra cellular fluid and that is a measure of what a blood-glucose test shows. The norm is 70-110 in a nondiabetic person. In the hospital I don't begin giving insulin to my patients until 150. When there is too much sugar in the extracellular fluid that means there isn't enough in the cells and people begin experiencing fatigue and can go in a coma. More insulin is given to accomodate and help the sugar get into the cells. If not enough carbohydrate is consumed it can lead to low sugar in the extracellular fluid(hypoglycemia), so there's not enough to put in the cells for energy. We've all felt our sugar low because we we get shakey. For diabetics, they are given sugar, or if they go comatose I use IV push dextrose, and they wake up within 15 seconds. For the rest of us ingesting a simple carb is enough to bounce it up within 15 minutes.



When it comes to exercising our first 30 seconds of energy comes from ATP and phosphocreatine stored in the muscle. If you have ever heard of anyone who takes creatine it works by giving people longer bursts of energy in this initial stage and they build muscle faster. However, creatine has not been approved as a safe product to use. Only glucose can be used to produce ATP. The 2nd stage lasts 30 seconds to 3 minutes inwhich glucose is burned. In the final stage glucose and fat are burned. You must workout cardiovascularly for 20 minutes before you begin burning your fat stores. That's why it is advised for people with diabetes to exercise 30-60 minutes 3-4 times a week to promote carbohydrate metabolism and insulin sensitivity. People with diabetes who exercise keep a tighter grip on the glucose in the extracellular fluid. Sometimes they don't need to take insulin anymore. On the flip side, because it's a endocrine/metabolic disorder if not enough glucose isn't in the extracellular fluid before exercising and insulin has been taken it can lead to hypoglycemia, so it's important to have a fast acting carbohydrate nearby.

Fats are made up of 3 glucose molecules(triglycerides). When the body can't readily use it then it stores it as fat. If you consume lots of sugar, overtime the body learns to react faster and automatically store it as fat. Obesity is generally not caused by ingesting fat, but by consuming too much sugar. American College of Sports Medicine recommends 6-10g/kg of carbohydrate should be ingested every day. My Fitness Pal has mine calculated at 4.5 g/kg. Simple carbs are high in sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and usually lack nutrients but are quick sugar hikers. Complex carbs like fruits, veggies, and wheat products(if you aren't eating gluten free) help to regulate the sugar, keeping it at a even level in our bloodstream, and tighter control of our blood sugar. These are important to have, and not to avoid, but to eat in moderation. There is this huge emphasis from people about not eating carbs or low carb diet. It's very important to get these complex carbs, because if you don't have enough glucose in your system, then you won't have energy to burn fat. I myself avoid heavy carbs, such as wheat products. They are higher in sugar levels, which tends to spike my sugar, then when it drops I feel miserably exhausted. I try to keep foods that are medium on the glycemic index.

As always I can never have too many MFP friends. Lets be friends. Add me!!!!

TL'DR, wrong!