A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.

Options
24567…15

Replies

  • Turnaround2012
    Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    Bump - Good Post!
  • vjohn04
    vjohn04 Posts: 2,276 Member
    Options
    No.

    :angry:

    :flowerforyou:
  • Sproutlady135
    Sproutlady135 Posts: 19
    Options
    Thank you for your inspiration. Do you count calories? If so, how do you eat enough calories?
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    Where is proof?

    I'll keep the sugar...and my abzzz
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    People switching to paleo style or low carb diets typically eat less calories than on higher carb / sugar regimes.

    Also individuals that are insulin resistant do better than those who aren't on some regimes of low carb / low GI - horses for courses :-

    F1.medium.gif

    "Participants were randomized for 24 weeks to either a high–glycemic load diet (60% carbohydrate, 20% protein, 20% fat, 15 g fiber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 86, and glycemic load of 116 g/1,000 kcal) or a low–glycemic load diet (40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, 30% fat, 15 g giber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 53, and glycemic load of 45 g/1,000 kcals) at 30% calorie restriction compared with baseline individual energy needs."

    "Participants with high baseline INS-30 lost more weight if randomized to the low–glycemic load diet compared with the high–glycemic load diet (P < 0.05). "

    "The mean target energy intake was 1,966 kcal/day, and the mean reported daily energy intake during the intervention did not differ between the two groups (2,017 kcal in the high–glycemic load diet vs. 1,972 kcal in the low–glycemic load diet, P = 0.70)."

    So a calorie wasn't a calorie here, either.
  • esme1983
    esme1983 Posts: 60
    Options
    So how can anyone argue that sugar slows weightloss when so many people have lost weight whilst eating it? I lost a lot of weight whilst eating cakes etc (staying in a calorie deficit) BUT.. Never in all my life have I got lower than a certain weight (and it's not a very low one) until I eliminated sugar. And I have never had any muscle mass.

    So what I would say (although granted it isn't scientific!) is that whether to cut out (or drastically reduce) sugar intake is a case of what your goals are. And how easy you want your loss to be. Now I fill up on "proper" calories I find it much easier to stay in a calrie deficit. Where as When I was eating sugar I was often hungry. And I definitely have less fat and water weight than I ever managed whilst eating sugar.

    What annoys me is people who don't calorie count but eat "healthily" and refuse to accept that sugar IS sugar and that there aren't good and bad sugars. I don't mean that THEY annoy me. It's the food manufacturers claiming hteir product is so damn healthy when it is FULL of sugar and calories. My step daughter guzzles "Naked Juice" on top of a normal diet becuase it is marketed as a health drink even though with 29g of sugar in one small bottle, she might as well be eating donuts. If you're calorie counting it doesn;t matter much as Calories in Vs Out will prevail... but very dangerous if not.
  • Sproutlady135
    Sproutlady135 Posts: 19
    Options
    The G.I. Handbook How the Glycemic Index works explains the difference between a simple carb. (sugar/flour) is different from a complex carb (apple) and I find it helpful. My body does not respond to, " a calorie is a calorie method." Probably because my metabolism is shot and my old age has caused changes in everything. I certainly do not have any solutions for someone my age. I never had a weight problem until I got old. I need to find a thread for others in my boat.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    So how can anyone argue that sugar slows weightloss when so many people have lost weight whilst eating it?

    They could argue that with less sugar the weight loss would have been quicker, for example.

    I don't think anyone says sugar prevents weight loss completely, and insulin resistant people may be different to insulin sensitive people, but there's a fair body of evidence that reducing it generally gives a favourable response in obese people.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    If that hadn't been, broadly,my line of thinking around a year ago I would be laughing at that.

    As it is I am squirming a little uneasily in my seat and wondering what I was ever thinking.

    But hey, we are all learning, right? :)

    live and learn indeed :smile:

    Good work on your success OP but as others have said that is not proof.

    Lustig is a quack BTW.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,018 Member
    Options
    People switching to paleo style or low carb diets typically eat less calories than on higher carb / sugar regimes.

    Also individuals that are insulin resistant do better than those who aren't on some regimes of low carb / low GI - horses for courses :-

    F1.medium.gif

    "Participants were randomized for 24 weeks to either a high–glycemic load diet (60% carbohydrate, 20% protein, 20% fat, 15 g fiber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 86, and glycemic load of 116 g/1,000 kcal) or a low–glycemic load diet (40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, 30% fat, 15 g giber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 53, and glycemic load of 45 g/1,000 kcals) at 30% calorie restriction compared with baseline individual energy needs."

    "Participants with high baseline INS-30 lost more weight if randomized to the low–glycemic load diet compared with the high–glycemic load diet (P < 0.05). "

    "The mean target energy intake was 1,966 kcal/day, and the mean reported daily energy intake during the intervention did not differ between the two groups (2,017 kcal in the high–glycemic load diet vs. 1,972 kcal in the low–glycemic load diet, P = 0.70)."

    So a calorie wasn't a calorie here, either.
    Can you link that study? If the people has preexisting glucose intolerance's that makes a difference and lower carb will help with cell function...........2 weeks is also that initial time frame for reduced glycogen stores depending on the exercise regime when carbs are reduced...............long term would be interesting, alos there's a plethera of studies that show no difference.
  • luckynky
    luckynky Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    I think everyone is different. I think there are a LOT of people who are very sensitive to sugar. I am. And I believe that all calories are NOT equal across the board. Some people don't seem to be affected, while some are greatly affected. Do I have scientific proof and/or am I a scientist? No. But I am hypoglycemic and get "addicted" to sugar if I just let myself go unchecked, then I get in a really bad place where I will blackout and have a lot of other health issues. No, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients. Just because you're not affected at age 30 doesn't mean by 55 you won't see some detrimental effects.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    Read this and you might change your mind about Lustig's assertions....

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    winner_winner_chicken_dinner_funny_postcard-p239285029173062243envli_400.jpg
  • rduhlir
    rduhlir Posts: 3,550 Member
    Options
    This is the song that never ends....
    Yes it goes on and on my friend...
    Some people started singing it, not knowing what it does...
    And they'll continue singing forever just because...
    This is the song that never ends....
  • ngyoung
    ngyoung Posts: 311 Member
    Options
    Should add the Fathead movie to your list.

    People can dismiss it as bro-science all they want but the evidence has been piling up more and more against sugar. Yeah most people knew it should be eaten in small portions but that hasn't been happening. Plus there is sugar in so many processed foods that people don't even realize.
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    Options
    o, a calorie is not just a calorie. Your body needs specific nutrients, which cannot be found in sugar. If you're getting all your nutrients and eating sugar, then you're going to gain weight. If you can live at a healthy weight on sugar, you're not getting all your nutrients and you're health will likely be affected after long-term sugar consumption/lack of needed nutrients.

    disappointed.gif
  • eblakes93
    eblakes93 Posts: 372 Member
    Options
    My anecdotal evidence points to the opposite. I lived in Spain and Morocco for three weeks this summer on a class trip. I had white baguette with tomato almost every day for breakfast and an ice cream every day. Lunch and dinner were almost always 3 courses, dinner always had dessert. I had pastries as snacks. I ate until I was full, sometimes I ate when I wasn't even hungry. In Morocco I drank sweetened mint tea and ate white bread every single day.

    I lost six pounds in three weeks. Why? I walked 3+ hours every day - sometimes as much as 6-8 hours.

    Are getting fruits and vegetables an important part of getting adequate nutrition? I certainly think so. Does that mean you can't have and enjoy your ice cream? No, I don't think so.

    Do what works for you, whatever gets you through the day. I'll do what works for me too.
  • Pookylou
    Pookylou Posts: 988 Member
    Options
    This is the song that never ends....
    Yes it goes on and on my friend...
    Some people started singing it, not knowing what it does...
    And they'll continue singing forever just because...
    This is the song that never ends....
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    BRB eating sugar when i want and getting leaner, stronger, and better health markers. I must be a wizard OP.
  • Howbouto
    Howbouto Posts: 2,121 Member
    Options
    Bump.

    I too believe sugar is very healthy for us.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    People switching to paleo style or low carb diets typically eat less calories than on higher carb / sugar regimes.

    Also individuals that are insulin resistant do better than those who aren't on some regimes of low carb / low GI - horses for courses :-

    F1.medium.gif

    "Participants were randomized for 24 weeks to either a high–glycemic load diet (60% carbohydrate, 20% protein, 20% fat, 15 g fiber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 86, and glycemic load of 116 g/1,000 kcal) or a low–glycemic load diet (40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, 30% fat, 15 g giber/1,000 kcal, mean estimated daily glycemic index of 53, and glycemic load of 45 g/1,000 kcals) at 30% calorie restriction compared with baseline individual energy needs."

    "Participants with high baseline INS-30 lost more weight if randomized to the low–glycemic load diet compared with the high–glycemic load diet (P < 0.05). "

    "The mean target energy intake was 1,966 kcal/day, and the mean reported daily energy intake during the intervention did not differ between the two groups (2,017 kcal in the high–glycemic load diet vs. 1,972 kcal in the low–glycemic load diet, P = 0.70)."

    So a calorie wasn't a calorie here, either.
    During the 6-month intervention period, all food was provided by the research center, and participants were requested to consume only this food and report additional foods if they were eaten

    So you're making the assumption everyone was telling the truth about not sneaking foods

    Here is the full study

    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/28/12/2939.full

    Here's studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference

    An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

    Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.



    Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

    In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.



    Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.



    No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

    CONCLUSION:

    This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.



    Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

    Summary

    The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation

Categories