Sugar Doesn't Prevent Weight Loss

FireBrand80

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.

Starting mean body mass was ~193 pounds, these were not 300 lbs people we're talking about here.

And how does eating sugar mean you have to burn more calories??

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.

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!

I agree, I am not anti sugar. I enjoy my Rocher balls and Captain and it hasn't hindered my own personal weight loss. I think that in general, if you are trying to lose weight you are much more aware of how much sugar you eat. I don't eat many pastries anymore where as I use to eat them almost every day. I think it comes down to how you personally deal with cravings. Some people can eat one donut out the bag and some just have to eat the whole bag.

alexis831

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.

HAH.... no it doesn't. 500 calories of chicken breast verses 500 calories of chocolate is still 500 calories to burn off!

And I’ve dropped almost 4% body fat eating sugar over the last 3 or so months. 8% total after birth so I don't see how that negatively effected me.

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.

HAH.... no it doesn't. 500 calories of chicken breast verses 500 calories of chocolate is still 500 calories to burn off!

And I’ve dropped almost 4% body fat eating sugar over the last 3 or so months. 8% total after birth so I don't see how that negatively effected me.

Oooh don't use that as a comparison because you'll get a lecture on TEF

xarge

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

Indeed the difference is usually not much. Same goes for HDL/LDL levels, triglycerides, insulin levels. But in a not monitored diet, a high carb diet is inferior to HP or HL. If you look at the diaries of most people going over their caloric goals, you'll mostly see higher than daily goal carbs. They're usually low on protein, almost always under their goal, and like over their fat goal collaterally because of the consumption of for example fried foods.

Similar to this:
This is about lab rats on a long term study with no calorie restrictions but two groups, one being on HP 50%, and the other on normal protein at 15%. HP rats consumed 13% less than NP rats, at the end of 6 months, HP rats weighed 18% less than NP rats.

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/287/4/R934.full.

Whereas I understand the we're not mice cries,I take every study on humans with a pinch of salt. Mice are more dependable

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!

I agree, I am not anti sugar. I enjoy my Rocher balls and Captain and it hasn't hindered my own personal weight loss. I think that in general, if you are trying to lose weight you are much more aware of how much sugar you eat. I don't eat many pastries anymore where as I use to eat them almost every day. I think it comes down to how you personally deal with cravings. Some people can eat one donut out the bag and some just have to eat the whole bag.

I agree too! I would like to eat the whole bag! Which is why I only buy 1! I don't have an option... same with my food though

Cliffslosinit

Great post...

yarwell

So it's a comparison of different blends of carbohydrates in the context of a high carb diet ?

"The total meal plan for all four hypocaloric groups was
based on the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Exchange List and ranged from 50% -
55% carbohydrates, 15%-20% protein, and 25%-30% fat."

"This work was supported by a grant from the Corn Refiners Association." -- Oops.

I do wish they wouldn't mix the sexes in these studies, it makes the variance of most parameters far bigger than it need be and consequently it's harder to find statistical significance.

Sublog

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

IIFYM folks!

FireBrand80

So it's a comparison of different blends of carbohydrates in the context of a high carb diet ?

Pretty much, yeah. I'm sure you're aware there's other stuff out there if you want a macro-comparison study.

Treece68

I can over eat a loaf of good bread and a whole container of hummus
Sugary foods have more calories in them so if you have like 2 donuts that is like 800 cal is that over eating? I don't think so
Calories are calories

Treece68

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:

this :laugh:

Acg67

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

Indeed the difference is usually not much. Same goes for HDL/LDL levels, triglycerides, insulin levels. But in a not monitored diet, a high carb diet is inferior to HP or HL. If you look at the diaries of most people going over their caloric goals, you'll mostly see higher than daily goal carbs. They're usually low on protein, almost always under their goal, and like over their fat goal collaterally because of the consumption of for example fried foods.

Similar to this:
This is about lab rats on a long term study with no calorie restrictions but two groups, one being on HP 50%, and the other on normal protein at 15%. HP rats consumed 13% less than NP rats, at the end of 6 months, HP rats weighed 18% less than NP rats.

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/287/4/R934.full.

Whereas I understand the we're not mice cries,I take every study on humans with a pinch of salt. Mice are more dependable

If you look at a lot of the ad lib studies on low carb vs other diets, you'd find about 50% do show greater weight/fat loss on low carb and around 50% do not. So when taking that into consideration along with the studies that tightly control cals, there doens't seem to be a huge advantage for low carb. That's not to say many people find them effective and easy to adhere to.

yarwell

If you look at a lot of the ad lib studies on low carb vs other diets, you'd find about 50% do show greater weight/fat loss on low carb and around 50% do not.

and none show a low fat diet to be superior ?

http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

BalmyD

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.

Is there perhaps an ethical issue in a controlled study with forcing people not to exercise, so they just chose a consistent amount of exercise? If I was going to be in a study, and they said "oh by the way, you will be required to not exercise at all," I would quit the study.

jofjltncb6

Why do people consistently equate "high sugar" with "high carb"? I believe there may be a difference. (Or perhaps the problem is that my belief is wrong.)

Personally, I am very anti-added sugar, but I am certainly not anti-carb (and am in fact probably pro-carb). I'm just pickier about the source of my carbs.

myfitnessnmhoy

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...

There's also the factor that sugar doesn't really fill you up for any length of time, and a couple of hours later you've got a raging case of the hungries again. At least that's how it works for me.

Lowering sugar may not be helping me lose weight directly, but it's sure helping me control my appetite which has a secondary effect of me being able to eat more rationally and live more comfortably on fewer calories.

When I try to stay within my calorie limit on a higher-sugar diet, drywall starts to look good to me.

cbferriss

The subjects were in a controlled environment. I find the problem with this sugar is that I crave more after eating it. The test subjects wouldn't be able to eat anything but what was given to them. So yes, calorie for calorie the sugar type wouldn't matter, but in the real world, after I eat junk, it takes three days for me to stop craving more.

bluebird321

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...

There's also the factor that sugar doesn't really fill you up for any length of time, and a couple of hours later you've got a raging case of the hungries again. At least that's how it works for me.

Lowering sugar may not be helping me lose weight directly, but it's sure helping me control my appetite which has a secondary effect of me being able to eat more rationally and live more comfortably on fewer calories.

When I try to stay within my calorie limit on a higher-sugar diet, drywall starts to look good to me.

This is my experience also.

dawndw

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.

Sugar, fructose, whatever you call it has a place in our lives....there is a difference between natural and refined. You want to stay away from the refined, meaning processed found in candy, cokes, any foods that are processed. People yell about sugar...and stray away from fruits etc. This you should be consuming, fruit is your friend a snickers bar isn't....but that being said.....if you count that snickers in your caloric intake it would not be such an enemy, it is proven that tons of refined sugar and a diet derived highly on this causes cravings.....