A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie

I would be interested in seeing what would happen to someone if they ate a diet of primarily table sugar for a week or two.

Another interesting consideration would be to examine the people who lost weight with low fat, calorie deficit diets both before and afterwards, determining exactly how much carbohydrate restriction they employed just as a mechanism of going from SAD to LFCD.

Of course, these studies have not been done. The first because any sane person realizes it's unhealthy and the second because no good reason that I can think of.

Uh... the Twinkie diet.

^^^^ The twinkie diet. 10 weeks eating primarily twinkies/junk food (2/3 of his intake) at a calorie deficit.

Every know health marker improved. Weight down. Bad cholesterol down. Good cholesterol up. Triglycerides down. Body fat down. and so on and so forth.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

I would be interested in seeing what would happen to someone if they ate a diet of primarily table sugar for a week or two.

Another interesting consideration would be to examine the people who lost weight with low fat, calorie deficit diets both before and afterwards, determining exactly how much carbohydrate restriction they employed just as a mechanism of going from SAD to LFCD.

Of course, these studies have not been done. The first because any sane person realizes it's unhealthy and the second because no good reason that I can think of.

Well, when people are on drips and unable to eat from severe illness/injury, in addition to the salt provided in the saline bag, they don't get any fibre or fat or suchlike. It's just fluid, salt and pure carbs. They seem to do ok on it; they may die from the illness or trauma, but they don't die from the drip contents.

I hadn't actually considered that scenario before. Granted, there are a ton of variables at play, and I'm curious as to whether the fructose in table sugar would make a difference, but yeah. That's an interesting thing to think about.

If they don't get a P.E.G. tube and tube feedings fairly quickly (within a week or two) they are quite likely to die of some type of infection. Apparently the need for more complete nutrition becomes urgent--in order to keep all systems (especially the immune system) going. That has been the conventional wisdom among docs who treat people in a "vegetative state".

I would be interested in seeing what would happen to someone if they ate a diet of primarily table sugar for a week or two.

Another interesting consideration would be to examine the people who lost weight with low fat, calorie deficit diets both before and afterwards, determining exactly how much carbohydrate restriction they employed just as a mechanism of going from SAD to LFCD.

Of course, these studies have not been done. The first because any sane person realizes it's unhealthy and the second because no good reason that I can think of.

Uh... the Twinkie diet.

^^^^ The twinkie diet. 10 weeks eating primarily twinkies/junk food (2/3 of his intake) at a calorie deficit.

Every know health marker improved. Weight down. Bad cholesterol down. Good cholesterol up. Triglycerides down. Body fat down. and so on and so forth.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Those results are not reproducible.

due to the fact twinkies are gone

Why would low fat diets = less carbs? It's the less calories and the weight loss that makes the difference.

Because when a person goes from a standard american diet (presumably, eating at a caloric surplus), and then goes to a LFCR diet, it's almost a given that the amount of carbohydrate consumed on diet is less than the amount of carbohydrate consumed previously (and also that the type of carbohydrate will likely skew towards that from fibrous vegetables instead of from candy, sweets, sugar, etc.) I don't believe that's a very out-there statement to make, but if you disagree, I'm willing to listen.

As for your second sentence, that's what the study would test.

There is plenty of data to show that an obese person is usually healthier when they lose weight by any means. Low carb, low fat, low nothing other than calories, it's all healthier than obese.

It could be that it is more a response to an enhanced nutritional status. When I followed crazy crash diets, I was anything but healthy. Yes, I lost weight but felt lousy and usually the diet ended in some kind of a health crisis. Since I have pulled up my nutritional sox in a more sensible plan (I am eating more vegetables and fruit now that I have stripped the "empty calories" out), I am enjoying improved health. Even before I lost much weight, I was able to taper off of both B.P. medications (and I was on the maximum dose of both with my doc suggesting I needed a third).

Few people would be willing to risk their health eating a permanent diet of exclusively Twinkies. I think we have instincts that lead us to what we need, if we are not messing the appetite system up with nutritional train wrecks.

he said he doesnt recommend it to anyone. he did it to prove a point

I would be interested in seeing what would happen to someone if they ate a diet of primarily table sugar for a week or two.

Another interesting consideration would be to examine the people who lost weight with low fat, calorie deficit diets both before and afterwards, determining exactly how much carbohydrate restriction they employed just as a mechanism of going from SAD to LFCD.

Of course, these studies have not been done. The first because any sane person realizes it's unhealthy and the second because no good reason that I can think of.

Uh... the Twinkie diet.

^^^^ The twinkie diet. 10 weeks eating primarily twinkies/junk food (2/3 of his intake) at a calorie deficit.

Every know health marker improved. Weight down. Bad cholesterol down. Good cholesterol up. Triglycerides down. Body fat down. and so on and so forth.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Those results are not reproducible.

due to the fact twinkies are gone

Hahaha! Rub it in, why don't ya?!

I ate spoonfuls of sugar growing up.

* and Betty Crocker straight from the can.

I have known thin folks who ate a LOT of sugar--apparently their bio-chemistry could tolerate it (some people lack fructokinase and cannot even digest table sugar or fructose). But what has that to do with anything?

When I was younger was thin and I ate tons of sugar while people sat around on the couch all day complaining that they couldn't eat like me because they'd gain weight if they did.

For some people, sugar seems to rev them up. For others, it makes them sluggish. Likely a lot of it has to do with the blood sugar/insulin levels mentioned earlier. High blood sugar makes people sluggish (the reason why many people cap Thanksgiving dinner with a nap). Low blood sugar often makes people wakeful, jittery and hyperactive. One of the first things that many pediatricians recommend for hyperactive children is that their parents cut way back or eliminate added sugar and chemical food additives from their diets and add in essential fatty acids. It appears to be beneficial for many.

Way to completely miss the point. I ate tons of sugar AND DID STUFF and was always in good health. Others SAT ON THE COUCH and did nothing else and even without eating a bunch of sugar they were in crappy health and overweight. It wasn't the amount of sugar any of us ate, it was the fact that I ate an appropriate amount of calories for my activity level, and they didn't.

I ate spoonfuls of sugar growing up.

* and Betty Crocker straight from the can.

I have known thin folks who ate a LOT of sugar--apparently their bio-chemistry could tolerate it (some people lack fructokinase and cannot even digest table sugar or fructose). But what has that to do with anything?

When I was younger was thin and I ate tons of sugar while people sat around on the couch all day complaining that they couldn't eat like me because they'd gain weight if they did.

For some people, sugar seems to rev them up. For others, it makes them sluggish. Likely a lot of it has to do with the blood sugar/insulin levels mentioned earlier. High blood sugar makes people sluggish (the reason why many people cap Thanksgiving dinner with a nap). Low blood sugar often makes people wakeful, jittery and hyperactive. One of the first things that many pediatricians recommend for hyperactive children is that their parents cut way back or eliminate added sugar and chemical food additives from their diets and add in essential fatty acids. It appears to be beneficial for many.

Way to completely miss the point. I ate tons of sugar AND DID STUFF and was always in good health. Others SAT ON THE COUCH and did nothing else and even without eating a bunch of sugar they were in crappy health and overweight. It wasn't the amount of sugar any of us ate, it was the fact that I ate an appropriate amount of calories for my activity level, and they didn't.

No, I was quite aware of the point you were making but perhaps the difference between you and them was that you were feeling better (because of your better health) and more energetic, and THAT led to more activity. I know that when my arthritis is flaring up, I have a LOT less energy than other days when the inflammation has subsided. When I watch my granddaughters reaction to sweets it is interesting. The six-year-old (who is quite tall and slender) becomes lethargic and whiny when she eats candy (and always has). The effect is entirely different in her three-year-old sister, who is short and petite for her age, though quite muscular for one so young---you can actually see definition. She is already a budding athlete and becomes happily "supercharged" on candy. Their genetic inheritance is quite obviously different in spite of having the same mother and father. Judging others when we have not walked in their shoes is neither kind nor prudent.

No, I was quite aware of the point you were making but perhaps the difference between you and them was that you were feeling better (because of your better health) and more energetic, and THAT led to more activity. I know that when my arthritis is flaring up, I have a LOT less energy than other days when the inflammation has subsided. When I watch my granddaughters reaction to sweets it is interesting. The six-year-old (who is quite tall and slender) becomes lethargic and whiny when she eats candy (and always has). The effect is entirely different in her three-year-old sister, who is short and petite for her age, though quite muscular for one so young---you can actually see definition. She is already a budding athlete and becomes happily "supercharged" on candy. Their genetic inheritance is quite obviously different in spite of having the same mother and father. Judging others when we have not walked in their shoes is neither kind nor prudent.

However you have to spin things to make sure sugar is at fault............

No, actually, I think we don't always know what we think we do. Sugar SEEMS harmless to some people. In fact, if the posted article is to be believed (and I have no reason to think otherwise), perhaps it even benefits some people. I know that it NEVER made ME feel better. Since I have stopped eating "empty calories" and have increased the number of fruits, vegetables and the amount of protein in my diet, I feel immeasurably better---so I will continue on as I have been. This has been fun and all kids--but one thing that I have noticed is that when I don't get enough sleep, things do not go well. I have a full and busy day planned for tomorrow and I have a few things to prepare yet. Have a good evening all.

I ate spoonfuls of sugar growing up.

* and Betty Crocker straight from the can.

I have known thin folks who ate a LOT of sugar--apparently their bio-chemistry could tolerate it (some people lack fructokinase and cannot even digest table sugar or fructose). But what has that to do with anything?

When I was younger was thin and I ate tons of sugar while people sat around on the couch all day complaining that they couldn't eat like me because they'd gain weight if they did.

For some people, sugar seems to rev them up. For others, it makes them sluggish. Likely a lot of it has to do with the blood sugar/insulin levels mentioned earlier. High blood sugar makes people sluggish (the reason why many people cap Thanksgiving dinner with a nap). Low blood sugar often makes people wakeful, jittery and hyperactive. One of the first things that many pediatricians recommend for hyperactive children is that their parents cut way back or eliminate added sugar and chemical food additives from their diets and add in essential fatty acids. It appears to be beneficial for many.

Way to completely miss the point. I ate tons of sugar AND DID STUFF and was always in good health. Others SAT ON THE COUCH and did nothing else and even without eating a bunch of sugar they were in crappy health and overweight. It wasn't the amount of sugar any of us ate, it was the fact that I ate an appropriate amount of calories for my activity level, and they didn't.

No, I was quite aware of the point you were making but perhaps the difference between you and them was that you were feeling better (because of your better health) and more energetic, and THAT led to more activity. I know that when my arthritis is flaring up, I have a LOT less energy than other days when the inflammation has subsided. When I watch my granddaughters reaction to sweets it is interesting. The six-year-old (who is quite tall and slender) becomes lethargic and whiny when she eats candy (and always has). The effect is entirely different in her three-year-old sister, who is short and petite for her age, though quite muscular for one so young---you can actually see definition. She is already a budding athlete and becomes happily "supercharged" on candy. Their genetic inheritance is quite obviously different in spite of having the same mother and father. Judging others when we have not walked in their shoes is neither kind nor prudent.

No. I was in better health and more energetic and more active because I'm not lazy and didn't just sit around all day complaining about the consequences of being lazy and overeating and making excuses. You did get the part where we all weren't eating the same amounts and I was eating a lot more than they were, right? Or were you too busy imagining how sugar could be blamed for all the world's problems?

I ate spoonfuls of sugar growing up.

* and Betty Crocker straight from the can.

I have known thin folks who ate a LOT of sugar--apparently their bio-chemistry could tolerate it (some people lack fructokinase and cannot even digest table sugar or fructose). But what has that to do with anything?

When I was younger was thin and I ate tons of sugar while people sat around on the couch all day complaining that they couldn't eat like me because they'd gain weight if they did.

For some people, sugar seems to rev them up. For others, it makes them sluggish. Likely a lot of it has to do with the blood sugar/insulin levels mentioned earlier. High blood sugar makes people sluggish (the reason why many people cap Thanksgiving dinner with a nap). Low blood sugar often makes people wakeful, jittery and hyperactive. One of the first things that many pediatricians recommend for hyperactive children is that their parents cut way back or eliminate added sugar and chemical food additives from their diets and add in essential fatty acids. It appears to be beneficial for many.

Way to completely miss the point. I ate tons of sugar AND DID STUFF and was always in good health. Others SAT ON THE COUCH and did nothing else and even without eating a bunch of sugar they were in crappy health and overweight. It wasn't the amount of sugar any of us ate, it was the fact that I ate an appropriate amount of calories for my activity level, and they didn't.

No, I was quite aware of the point you were making but perhaps the difference between you and them was that you were feeling better (because of your better health) and more energetic, and THAT led to more activity. I know that when my arthritis is flaring up, I have a LOT less energy than other days when the inflammation has subsided. When I watch my granddaughters reaction to sweets it is interesting. The six-year-old (who is quite tall and slender) becomes lethargic and whiny when she eats candy (and always has). The effect is entirely different in her three-year-old sister, who is short and petite for her age, though quite muscular for one so young---you can actually see definition. She is already a budding athlete and becomes happily "supercharged" on candy. Their genetic inheritance is quite obviously different in spite of having the same mother and father. Judging others when we have not walked in their shoes is neither kind nor prudent.

No. I was in better health and more energetic and more active because I'm not lazy and didn't just sit around all day complaining about the consequences of being lazy and overeating and making excuses. You did get the part where we all weren't eating the same amounts and I was eating a lot more than they were, right? Or were you too busy imagining how sugar could be blamed for all the world's problems?

Judging by the amount of hostility from sugar-eaters toward anyone who questions the safety of eating sugar, perhaps it IS part of the "world-problem" scenario. *cue* "What the world needs now, is sweet ....it's the only thing that there's just too little of..."

It is certainly interesting how those who are bashing processed foods and blaming sugar for their levels of obesity are the ones with no pictures and locked diaries.

Link to thread? Would like to see....

On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.

Actually the packaging normally says Calories. 1 Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories. For whatever reason, capital C calories means 1000 calories.

On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.

Actually the packaging normally says Calories. 1 Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories. For whatever reason, capital C calories means 1000 calories.

A kilocalorie is a 1000 calories, I think it is confusing to use Cal instead of kcal. It would be like using Gram instead of kilograms for 1000 grams. It's MADNESS!!!