Sugar Doesn't Prevent Weight Loss

xarge

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.

Because if you are high in sugar you can't be low in carb by definition. A high carb diet is rarely practiced as a diet with high complex carbs. Your diet is at around 25-30% carbs, correct me if I'm wrong. We're talking about 65%.

PinkEnvyx

Studies prove Zero but that the individuals they studies on had THAT reaction and not all the exact same even then. We need to remember common knowledge…your body is not 100% like, does not react 100% the same as, and does not need 100% the same things as anyone else. So no study can be 100% true and anything not 100% true just means they don't know for sure. LOL

xarge

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.

It's not unethical to tell people not to exercise. Ethics only draws the line when something endangers the life of a human with or without their consent (with consent part is not about ethics to be honest but about laws). It's only less convenient because you'll find less study subjects, like you said how you'd quit.

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.

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.

Dunno if it's ethical or not. But at the start of the study they eliminated anyone who wasn't physically able to comply with the mandatory exercise.

Again, I just can't wrap my head around a study designed to show sugar doesn't affect weight loss including an exercise component -- unless you want to ensure weight loss because that's what you're being paid to produce.

The exercise prescription was the same in all five groups and emphasized walking as the
preferred form of exercise, however, other forms of exercise were not prohibited. Participants
were encouraged to adhere to recommendations for daily physical activity. Duration of each
exercise session was progressively increased from 15 minutes three days a week at the start
of the study to 45 minutes three days a week at the end three weeks and remained at 45
minutes three days a week for the duration of the study . Subjects exercised between 60% and
80% of their maximal aerobic power using their predetermined maximal heart rate to regulate
exercise intensity. An additional five minutes of warm up and ten minutes of cool down
exercise were also included. To minimize overuse injuries, subjects were encouraged to use a
variety of exercise modalities (e.g. walking, cycling, etc.). However, walking exercise was
recommended as the main form of exercise.

betsywalton

One of the issues with high fructose corn syrup is that when metabolized, it causes spikes in blood sugar well beyond those of sucrose (table sugar). Sucrose is a different chemical compound which, though it causes spikes, does so in a less exaggerated manner. This physiological response in blood sugar levels to HFCS places stress on the pancreas and cellular metabolic processes which can lead to insulin resistance, particularly in those who have other risk factors such as family history, obesity, and sedentary life style.

The repeated spiking of blood sugar and stress on cellular response is a know precursor to diabetes. So, though marketeers will tell you that "sugar is sugar" , don't believe it. The devil's in the details on this one!

betsywalton

Because sugar, by chemical structure, is a carbohydrate. It is pure carbohydrate C12H6O12 in structure. It is same as saying turkey is protein. It's chemical structure is nitrogen based, thus it is classified as protein.

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.

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!

Food "palatability" (i.e. tasting good) is definitely one of the many causes of over-eating. Sugary foods tend to be very calorie dense and very good tasting. It's good for you guys if they don't lead you to over eating, but that's not the case for a lot of people.

There was actually a study in mice done that showed sugar was only fattening in mice when it was given to them in a "palatable" way. It's just common sense of course, but it shows that palatability is important factor (If you want to see a link to the study, Stephan guyenet discusses it over at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com).

FireBrand80

Studies prove Zero but that the individuals they studies on had THAT reaction and not all the exact same even then. We need to remember common knowledge…your body is not 100% like, does not react 100% the same as, and does not need 100% the same things as anyone else. So no study can be 100% true and anything not 100% true just means they don't know for sure. LOL

That's a fair point. The best we can do is try to draw the best conclusion we can from a totality of the evidence, and there will always bee some grey areas. Nutritional science is still relatively new, but there is some objective truth to be found.

ahamm002

Again, I just can't wrap my head around a study designed to show sugar doesn't affect weight loss including an exercise component -- unless you want to ensure weight loss because that's what you're being paid to produce.

The point of the study was that in the context of an "overall" healthy diet and exercise program, with strictly regulated caloric intake, 20% caloric intake of sugar won't prevent fat loss and HFCS is the same as sucralose. I don't think that a surprise to anyone. The question arises what happens when calories arent' strictly monitored and they subjects aren't eating a hypocaloric diet anymore.

So overall I agree with you. The study seems more oriented toward business than science.

FireBrand80

One of the issues with high fructose corn syrup is that when metabolized, it causes spikes in blood sugar well beyond those of sucrose (table sugar). Sucrose is a different chemical compound which, though it causes spikes, does so in a less exaggerated manner. This physiological response in blood sugar levels to HFCS places stress on the pancreas and cellular metabolic processes which can lead to insulin resistance, particularly in those who have other risk factors such as family history, obesity, and sedentary life style.

No. Just no.

AllTehBeers

Food "palatability" (i.e. tasting good) is definitely one of the many causes of over-eating. Sugary foods tend to be very calorie dense and very good tasting. It's good for you guys if they don't lead you to over eating, but that's not the case for a lot of people.

There was actually a study in mice done that showed sugar was only fattening in mice when it was given to them in a "palatable" way. It's just common sense of course, but it shows that palatability is important factor (If you want to see a link to the study, Stephan guyenet discusses it over at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com).

Well yeah, want and desire are the basic foundation for any over indulgance, think drugs, sex and rock and roll. Lol If I don't like chocolate or pastries but am still fat, you obviously wouldn't blame it on sugar. You wouldn't eat ANYTHING that didn't taste good, this isn't just limited to things with sugar.

xarge

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.

This is why studying with human subjects suck. They're never isolated enough to give objective results. The higher the number of participants gets, the more expensive it gets of course. That's why an independent study is almost impossible. In most of the studies you can't monitor your subjects except for weekly tests, in the end you hope they stick to the guidelines hence the error margin is so wide.

Currently MDs and sciences in dietary sciences do not usually differ between genders or ethnicity either, whereas the difference can be negligible when you keep adding negligible differences up, it turns into a huge margin.

betsywalton

? I don't know where you went to medical school, but that's what they taught us at Duke. I trust my credentials.

AlabasterVerve

? I don't know where you went to medical school, but that's what they taught us at Duke. I trust my credentials.

:laugh:

AllTehBeers

? I don't know where you went to medical school, but that's what they taught us at Duke. I trust my credentials.

:laugh:

2nd. :laugh:

FireBrand80

? I don't know where you went to medical school, but that's what they taught us at Duke. I trust my credentials.

In that case, please explain the difference in chemical structure between sucrose and HCFS, and why these 2 compounds would be metabolized so differently. Thanks.

dosmundos

saved for later reading

WendyTerry420

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.

Because if you are high in sugar you can't be low in carb by definition. A high carb diet is rarely practiced as a diet with high complex carbs. Your diet is at around 25-30% carbs, correct me if I'm wrong. We're talking about 65%.

I'm at 45% carbs. So I guess that's a mid-carb diet? :bigsmile:

Acg67

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

Off hand I think the study that was nearly the same as the A to Z study but had the Ornish diet coming out tops is one.

The main issue that the diet doc seems to be missing, is these longer term ad lib studies are really more a study of dietary adherence than anything. That is mostly why he completely ignores the numerous trials that tightly control cals and protein, that don't show any advantage to low carb diets which goes against his little low carb are the best for weight/fat loss.

Crochetluvr

SACRILOSE!!!