Sugar Doesn't Prevent Weight Loss

FireBrand80

This brand new study fed the overweight/obese subjects fructose at the 25th and 50th percentile of typical population intake, as both sucrose and High Fructose Corn Syrup for 12 weeks. Weight loss was not impaired, and there was no difference in weight or fat loss between sucrose and HFCS. All the groups experienced similar decreases in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol.

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22866961

Full Text: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf

rml_16

LIAR!

jfan175

This brand new study fed the overweight/obese subjects fructose at the 25th and 50th percentile of typical population intake, as both sucrose and High Fructose Corn Syrup for 12 weeks. Weight loss was not impaired, and there was no difference in weight or fat loss between sucrose and HFCS. All the groups experienced similar decreases in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol.

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22866961

Full Text: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf

So, it actually IS calories in vs. calories out. Imagine that! Thanks for this.

joejccva71

WIZARDRY!

Hendrix7

In for later.

Acg67

43% of caloric intake as sucrose in this study

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

FireBrand80

43% of caloric intake as sucrose in this study

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

Damn, 43%...so much for crying myself to sleep because an apple turned my MFP sugar number red.

rml_16

so much for crying myself to sleep because an apple turned my MFP sugar number red.

You, too???

alexis831

43% of caloric intake as sucrose in this study

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

Great link! I will have to save that for later. I got a page into it and my brain is already fried! Too much for an early read

PercivalHackworth

Excellent, thanks FireBrand :-)

FireBrand80

so much for crying myself to sleep because an apple turned my MFP sugar number red.

You, too???

at least once a week

jofjltncb6

Makes sense...but...BUT...

...was there any mention of number of/intensity of cravings of the test subjects dependent on their different diets?

I've always thought that actual weight loss was a simple CICO thing, but that the composition of our diets likely affects other aspects of our lives like cravings (quantity and quality), hormonal balance, overall health, etc.

(Yeah, I'm too busy/lazy to actually read the studies to figure it out myself.)

rml_16

Makes sense...but...BUT...

...was there any mention of number of/intensity of cravings of the test subjects dependent on their different diets?

I've always thought that actual weight loss was a simple CICO thing, but that the composition of our diets likely affects other aspects of our lives like cravings (quantity and quality), hormonal balance, overall health, etc.

(Yeah, I'm too busy/lazy to actually read the studies to figure it out myself.)

As a victim of a sweet tooth, I can attest that the less junk food I eat, the less I crave it. But the anti-sugar crowd often lumps fruit into the evil category. I eat fruit daily, usually at least five servings in a smoothie. That doesn't trigger cravings at all.

myofibril

if calories are held constant that is...

In a free living situation many people will struggle with over eating if they consume items with a lot of sugar because, for the most part, they taste freakin' delicious...

FireBrand80

Makes sense...but...BUT...

...was there any mention of number of/intensity of cravings of the test subjects dependent on their different diets?

I've always thought that actual weight loss was a simple CICO thing, but that the composition of our diets likely affects other aspects of our lives like cravings (quantity and quality), hormonal balance, overall health, etc.

(Yeah, I'm too busy/lazy to actually read the studies to figure it out myself.)

No, that wasn't really the focus of the study. It's well known that sugar isn't every satiating. The risk is passive over consumption, rather than the sugar itself>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8737167
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17579632

FireBrand80

if calories are held constant that is...

In a free living situation many people will struggle with over eating if they consume items with a lot of sugar because, for the most part, they taste freakin' delicious...

Well, if you're going to lose weight, you need a sustainable method of calorie control, sugar or not.

xarge

43% of caloric intake as sucrose in this study

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

Good grief, that's a 1100cal diet on BMI 35-36 women. No wonder. Still the fat loss difference seems little despite the deficit.

Both studies are a bit too in vain. Expecting people to gain weight or not to lose weight on a deficit is against thermodynamics. However what they need to do is to compare results with HP and HF diets, in terms of overall loss and body composition.

Something like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17622289

ahamm002

There's a couple issues with this study:

1. It's already well known that in the context of a hypocaloric diet, your blood markers probably aren't going to be adversly affected by sugar (or whatever) b/c it's just burned off right away.

2. We already know about CICO. The problem has always been achieving it consistently. Sure if the calories are strictly regulated in the context of a study, then you could feed the subjects whatever you wanted. But in the real world many people who eat lots of sugar are in fact likely to have their weight loss hindered b/c the sugary foods will lead to over-eating.

Acg67

43% of caloric intake as sucrose in this study

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

Good grief, that's a 1100cal diet on BMI 35-36 women. No wonder. Still the fat loss difference seems little despite the deficit.

Both studies are a bit too in vain. Expecting people to gain weight or not to lose weight on a deficit is against thermodynamics. However what they need to do is to compare results with HP and HF diets, in terms of overall loss and body composition.

Something like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17622289

Why wouldn't you look for trials that hold cals and protein constant, as higher protein diets have shown to have a slight metabolic advantage?

AlabasterVerve

The added amount of exercise in this study (45 minutes of walking or comparable exercise three times a week) may have also contributed to the observed weight loss, although most studies report that weight
loss from exercise alone is typically modest

Why would you include exercise in a study designed to study the impact sugar has on weight loss? Shouldn't you take pains to remove all of the variables instead of deliberately adding them? I know I'm going to sound like a nut job to the eat-as-much-sugar-as-you-want-as-long-as-your-under-your-calories crowd but when you see something like that and then that the study was funded by the Corn Growers Association or some such how am I supposed to take a study like this seriously?

And for the record, I actually do think you can eat whatever you want on a calorie restricted diet and still lose weight.

beckajw

There's a couple issues with this study:

1. It's already well known that in the context of a hypocaloric diet, your blood markers probably aren't going to be adversly affected by sugar (or whatever) b/c it's just burned off right away.

2. We already know about CICO. The problem has always been achieving it consistently. Sure if the calories are strictly regulated in the context of a study, then you could feed the subjects whatever you wanted. But in the real world many people who eat lots of sugar are in fact likely to have their weight loss hindered b/c the sugary foods will lead to over-eating.

Sugary foods have never lead me to over-eating.

xarge

Why wouldn't you look for trials that hold cals and protein constant, as higher protein diets have shown to have a slight metabolic advantage?

It's hard to find an isocaloric research, at least I haven't run into one yet. Like how a HP, HC and HF diet would affect a <Fit BF% people without exercise at maintenance.

islandmonkey

This brand new study fed the overweight/obese subjects fructose at the 25th and 50th percentile of typical population intake, as both sucrose and High Fructose Corn Syrup for 12 weeks. Weight loss was not impaired, and there was no difference in weight or fat loss between sucrose and HFCS. All the groups experienced similar decreases in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol.

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22866961

Full Text: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf

1. This study only included obese/overweight people, therefore it is not applicable to the population as a whole.

2. This study was only 12 weeks long. This is not long term, and therefore doesn't speak to health impacts other than weight (whether that is fat or muscle weight or other weight loss was not included in this study either).

3. ALL participants ate sugar. There was NO comparison of a NON sugar diet - including a comparison of starting and ending body composition and other health indicators.


This study does NOT conclude that sugar consumption is HEALTHY. It only concludes that obese individuals can lose weight, in the short term, whether eating sucrose or eating HFCS.

In addition, weight loss does not necessarily = healthier.

FireBrand80

There's a couple issues with this study:

1. It's already well known that in the context of a hypocaloric diet, your blood markers probably aren't going to be adversly affected by sugar (or whatever) b/c it's just burned off right away.

2. We already know about CICO. The problem has always been achieving it consistently. Sure if the calories are strictly regulated in the context of a study, then you could feed the subjects whatever you wanted. But in the real world many people who eat lots of sugar are in fact likely to have their weight loss hindered b/c the sugary foods will lead to over-eating.

1. It's not as well known around here as it should be. Many still think sugar is "poison."

2. Again, a lot of people don't believe in CICO. And how much sugar is "lots" and how much might cause you to overeat is an individual thing. In fact, some on here struggle to eat 1,000 cals a day and would do well to add some calorie dense foods like sugar to their diets. As far as calories being "strictly regulated," I'm sure the subjects in the study didn't have a gun to their heads, they could have dropped out at any time.

myofibril

2. We already know about CICO. The problem has always been achieving it consistently. Sure if the calories are strictly regulated in the context of a study, then you could feed the subjects whatever you wanted. But in the real world many people who eat lots of sugar are in fact likely to have their weight loss hindered b/c the sugary foods will lead to over-eating.

Exactly.

The art is finding methods which swathes of people can use relatively easily in real world situations to keep them consistently in deficit. Minimising sugar intake, much liking cutting carb intake is a simple way to do so.

Now if everybody used an app like MFP to accurately track calorie intake everyone would have much more flexibility....

AlabasterVerve

I'm sure the subjects in the study didn't have a gun to their heads, they could have dropped out at any time.

247 started and 162 finished.

alexis831

There's a couple issues with this study:

1. It's already well known that in the context of a hypocaloric diet, your blood markers probably aren't going to be adversly affected by sugar (or whatever) b/c it's just burned off right away.

2. We already know about CICO. The problem has always been achieving it consistently. Sure if the calories are strictly regulated in the context of a study, then you could feed the subjects whatever you wanted. But in the real world many people who eat lots of sugar are in fact likely to have their weight loss hindered b/c the sugary foods will lead to over-eating.

Sugary foods have never lead me to over-eating.

Me neither... except on Sundays, but that is my off day. I over eat if I don't have my treats because I don't feel satisfied until I have a bit of sugar. And I did the whole deprive myself of sugar and it just made my cravings worse and me want to gorge! HAH! I like it, I eat it, I am at 16.4% body fat today... I am good with having treats and my HIGH carb low protein diet, heheh!

FireBrand80

1. This study only included obese/overweight people, therefore it is not applicable to the population as a whole.

2. This study was only 12 weeks long. This is not long term, and therefore doesn't speak to health impacts other than weight (whether that is fat or muscle weight or other weight loss was not included in this study either).

3. ALL participants ate sugar. There was NO comparison of a NON sugar diet - including a comparison of starting and ending body composition and other health indicators.


This study does NOT conclude that sugar consumption is HEALTHY. It only concludes that obese individuals can lose weight, in the short term, whether eating sucrose or eating HFCS.

In addition, weight loss does not necessarily = healthier.

1. Well, the focus of the study is weight loss. Overweight folks are the ones that need to lose weight. Also, you would expect the overweight/obese population to have impaired glucose metabolism, as compared to the normal weight population, so sugar would potential be even less harmful to the non-obese/overweight.

2. The short time period is a fair point, what possible additional variables would a longer time period expose? You're wrong about the study no measuring body composition and other health markers. There was a decrease in waist circumfrence and body mass with no difference between the groups. Also, as I said all groups experienced similar decreases in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol.

3. Again, you're incorrect. There was a control group.

xarge

1. It's not as well known around here as it should be. Many still think sugar is "poison."

I'm not one of them but you have to take the fact into account that these studies are usually short term studies. Some of them can't be followed for long because of the high deficit and naturally you won't find many people who will dedicate himself to a longer study. Needless to say it also gets harder to monitor people and how closely they follow the study as the time increase. However, the effects of X, not just sugar but anything, may yield different results in the long term.

Based on this study, you can't say that it's 100% safe to consume a 25% sugar diet over 10 years without any adverse effects on health.

FireBrand80

Based on this study, you can't say that it's 100% safe to consume a 25% sugar diet over 10 years without any adverse effects on health.

By the same token, you can't deem it unsafe without solid evidence. And context is important; what (I suspect) it mostly boils down to is whether or not you're controlling your weight and exercising.

xarge

Why wouldn't you look for trials that hold cals and protein constant, as higher protein diets have shown to have a slight metabolic advantage?

After some digging, I found a HF vs HC on 10 obese men with favoring HF over HC but it kinda lost me with a facepalm with 10cal/kg at deficit and 30cal/kg on maintenance diets.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/30/2/160.full.pdf+html