Sugar Doesn't Prevent Weight Loss

hazelovesfood

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.

I have stopped eating fruit now because of that red mark in the diary, one banana and its alomst over thats before you eat and veg and veg still has sugar in it, there is no no to avoid it imo. The majority of time I still go over my sugar and thats just with healthy foods, then sometimes i think bugger it and eat some divine fudge or some cake. I cant live trying to avoid sugar like its the plague.

hazelovesfood

The less sugar I consume, the less I crave, the less compelled I feel to eat at regular intervals.

Quite frankly the nitty gritty of the metabolic effects are all very interesting (and subject to many studies whose conclusions vary widely) but this one effect is enough for me to minimise my consumption of what is, essentially, non-essential.

I wil admit that it does make me crave more, btu i think thats a carby thing too.

m60kaf

Why is everyone always looking for a reason to fuel denial?

AllTehBeers

The 3rd reference I take you put in there as a joke? The most common forms of HFCS used in consumer products are HFCS-42 and HFCS-55

Do we know how much HFCS we're actually consuming though? Nutrition information doesn't have to be correct -- something like 20% difference is perfectly legal I think. And since all of the studies seem to be pointing their fingers at fructose these days, it's definitely a legitimate cause for concern in my opinion.

High-fructose corn syrup in soda has much more fructose than advertised, study finds
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/26/news/la-heb-too-much-fructose-in-hfcs-soda-20101026

In that case, how do we know anything we're consuming? If it were that completely inaccurate, calorie counting wouldn't be worth the effort.

ahamm002

I have stopped eating fruit now because of that red mark in the diary, one banana and its alomst over thats before you eat and veg and veg still has sugar in it, there is no no to avoid it imo. The majority of time I still go over my sugar and thats just with healthy foods, then sometimes i think bugger it and eat some divine fudge or some cake. I cant live trying to avoid sugar like its the plague.

Fruit is associated with numerous health benefits, including longer life! So it would be a bad idea to avoid it because of the naturally occurring sugar it contains.

Acg67

Why is everyone always looking for a reason to fuel denial?

The denial that sugar isn't as evil as fear mongerers would lead you to beleive?

mmapags

Why is everyone always looking for a reason to fuel denial?

The denial that sugar isn't as evil as fear mongerers would lead you to beleive?

Or othorexia?

LadyCNE

I do not eat any sugar, unless it's a fresh/frozen fruit/veggie. If I need to have something sweeter, I use unprocessed date syrup. No processed foods. When I did this, cravings stopped. Sugar is addicting, to me. Just like I guess an addict is, I stay clean away.

myofibril

There's an excellent blog post by Stephan Guyenet on sugar which can be found here:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/is-sugar-fattening.html#more

Conclusions

Here are the take-home points from this post:

Sugar, including fructose, is not inherently fattening relative to other calorie sources, and unrefined sugar is compatible with fat loss in the context of simple whole food diets.

Sugar can be fattening in certain contexts, specifically if it is added to foods and beverages to increase their palatability, reward value and energy density.

Sugar-sweetened beverages are probably one of the most fattening elements of the modern diet.

Fruit is not fattening, and it may actually be slimming.

In excess, refined sugar can cause body fat to redistribute from the subcutaneous depot (under the skin, where you want it) to the visceral depots and the liver (where you don't want it). It can also cause insulin resistance in the liver and increase blood pressure, all components of the 'metabolic syndrome'. This is caused specifically by the fructose portion of the sugar.

Here are the implications:

Avoiding sugar-sweetened foods, and particularly sugar-sweetened beverages (soda, punch, sweetened coffee, cocktails, maybe fruit juice as well?) can prevent and to some extent reverse fat gain and metabolic dysfunction.

I see no reason to believe that refined and unrefined sugars, used in the same context (e.g. muffins baked with white vs. brown sugar), would have different effects on body fatness. However, unrefined sugars may be less harmful to other aspects of health, because they contain other substances that may be protective. Mark Sisson discussed this idea in a recent post on honey (38).

Eating fruit does not contribute to fat gain in most people, but instead probably favors leanness. Fruit is a whole food with a low energy density and a moderate palatability and reward value.

That pretty much covers the bases I think...

beckajw

doesnt matter, high fructose corn syrup is still poison to the body

:laugh: good one!

FireBrand80

3. While regular table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose, high-fructose corn syrup can contain up to 80% fructose and 20% glucose, almost twice the fructose of common table sugar. Calories alone are not the key problem with high-fructose corn syrup. Rather, metabolism of excess amounts of fructose is the major concern. High dietary intake of fructose is problematic because fructose is metabolized differently from glucose. Glucose can be metabolized and converted to ATP, which is readily “burned” for energy by the cells’ mitochondria. Fructose, on the other hand, is more rapidly metabolized in the liver, flooding metabolic pathways and leading to increased triglyceride synthesis and fat storage in the liver. The high flux of fructose to the liver disturbs glucose metabolism and uptake pathways and leads to metabolic disturbances that underlie the induction of insulin resistance, a hallmark of type 2 diabetes. Scientists have therefore come to realize that all sugars are not created equal.
Flavin, D. MD (2008). Metabolic danger of high-fructose corn syrup. LE Magazine, December, 2008.

^^^^Not a study. Not even close.

xarge

^^^^Not a study. Not even close.

It's a report, you can check 76 references it has. That quote is readily correct about fructose metabolism understood so far.

FireBrand80

^^^^Not a study. Not even close.

It's a report, you can check 76 references it has. That quote is readily correct about fructose metabolism understood so far.

Without controlled research showing at what dose fructose is dangerous and in which populations, none of that is useful. Clearly it's not the case that any amount is always dangerous to everybody. So absent any context, it's little more than fear mongering.

betsywalton

Suit yourself. Good luck with your health.

runzalot81

Crap sugar makes me crave more crap sugar, negating the concept of moderation. Crap sugar bloats and constipates me.

Fruit doesn't bother me at all. Love my fruit.

xarge

^^^^Not a study. Not even close.

It's a report, you can check 76 references it has. That quote is readily correct about fructose metabolism understood so far.

Without controlled research showing at what dose fructose is dangerous and in which populations, none of that is useful. Clearly it's not the case that any amount is always dangerous to everybody. So absent any context, it's little more than fear mongering.

As I said, the studies aren't about "regular in terms of common sense" dosages but they're about high fructose intake or HFCS in this case. It's about the fact that the average young adult out there in the US (and probably in most countries around the world based on acquaintances) are getting 18% (Estimated, I've seen higher studies) of their energy intake from beverages ONLY. And that person is likely to have some more added sugars through food. Hence you see most studies going above 20% HFCS intake on subjects as HFCS is the most common sweetener in beverages.

The body is not made from glass so a can of soda or a candy bar every day is highly unlikely to affect it negatively unless there is a different underlying disease or proneness to one due to other reasons. But 6 cans of soda? (I've seen this amount regularly on forum or even more). All can agree that such a high intake is completely redundant in a healthy diet (doesn't matter if it is HC or HP or HF or a balanced diet). Whereas most people on this site follow it, a random person out there is more close to or above that US national average already. That's the reason I don't dismiss all of those studies including non-human primates and rodents. Whereas you don't take such an amount, it's a public health issue. I'm sure all of the people here, who think this is fearmongering, would have concerns if an immediate relative had such an unhealthy eating habit. That's the point.

This is a nice study on fructose vs glucose and it's effects on an isotonic diet on overweight to obese people. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/
It also counts the gender difference by end results, quantitative measurements like insuline sensitivity decrease significantly in women compared to men. It also links to other short studies involving HFCS.