Sugar Doesn't Prevent Weight Loss

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

alexis831

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.

I've been doin it for about 30 years quite consistently. Actually was more like 30% or higher until I dropped my 3 soda's a day recently. I'm good. Then again I am active!

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.

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!

Me too. I did Atkins for a long time, but just never felt satisfied. I would eat an astronomical amount of bacon and red meat looking for something to make me not hungry. I gained weight. I found that adding a potato to my steak was just the thing I needed to feel satieted and stop eating.

Acg67

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

I think when you look at those type of trials, you'll find usually no significant difference in fat loss between the groups. There are a few that do show an advantage to low carb diets, although those seem to be in the minority

AllTehBeers

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....

I have to disagree, respectfully. I don't think the consumption of the sugar itself leads to over eating but the fact that sugary foods (chocolate, pasteries) have a lot more calories puts you at your calorie limit sooner. If you eat a pastry for breakfast and fast food for lunch, most people will have to go over just to eat dinner.

Sidesteal

Good stuff, thanks for posting this.

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!

Me too. I did Atkins for a long time, but just never felt satisfied. I would eat an astronomical amount of bacon and red meat looking for something to make me not hungry. I gained weight. I found that adding a potato to my steak was just the thing I needed to feel satieted and stop eating.

YES! Then you feel satisfied! I understand you completely! Give me my sugars and carbs baby! Without them I get cranky And I tried without them for a long while. Ikk... My poor husband

xarge

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.

And I never said it's unsafe But from the opposite perspective this is not a solid evidence to convince "sugar is poison" followers. However if they think it's not possible to lose weight with sugar... :huh: Then they need a reality check like this.

I follow neither, and I agree with you. If you're sitting on the couch and stuffing yourself with oreos, then let's not blame it on sugar :laugh:

surfteam1689

Obese people can lose weight by sneezing. It's the rest of us (that only have to lose some 30 pounds) that would be negatively effected by continuing to consume so much sugar. Sugar just means you have to burn MORE calories.

AllTehBeers

Obese people can lose weight by sneezing. It's the rest of us (that only have to lose some 30 pounds) that would be negatively effected by continuing to consume so much sugar. Sugar just means you have to burn MORE calories.

Because it HAS more calories.

alexis831

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....

I have to disagree, respectfully. I don't think the consumption of the sugar itself leads to over eating but the fact that sugary foods (chocolate, pasteries) have a lot more calories puts you at your calorie limit sooner. If you eat a pastry for breakfast and fast food for lunch, most people will have to go over just to eat dinner.

Yes and no. You can over eat healthy too. I can eat a glazed donut at QT for around 250 calories for breakfast, then a cheesy cheddar burger at Wendy’s for 300 calories for lunch. That’s about 550 calories total and plenty to work with for the day. Usually I have a 90 calorie bar in-between that is all carbs and alot of sugar. That leaves me alot for dinner. I tend to over eat when I don’t give myself my sugar. Just don’t feel satisfied without it. Then I have dinner and follow up with either ice cream or last night I had 3 reeses peanut butter cups. I had 250 calories left so I just went for it!