A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Replies
-
Have you got any scientific papers that de-bunk what Lutwig is saying about Fructose? I'd love to read them if you have. LOL
Several people have posted them. These two specifically debunk Lutwig/Lustig/Taubes:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/0 -
:laugh:No.0 -
Man people get so defensive over their sugar. The main argument most of those videos the original poster listed are not saying that calories don't matter. Sugar consumption has shown to be a considerable factor in managing ones daily calories. I eat something sweet every day too that isn't the problem. People gaining weight on a SAD diet are eating sweets, pizzas, pastas, cookies, etc. Eating all that for a long time is damaging peoples metabolism. For over 30 years health experts have been blaming fat for everything while ignoring sugar and carbs.
Ignoring? Low carb/low sugar has been all the rage for years now. The same red herring that fat was in the past.
yep!
Diet Pepsi debuted in 1964.
Diet Coke debuted in 1982.
the food/beverage industry has long been aware that it is profitable to offer low sugar/low carb products.
Wow! I didn't realize that Diet Pepsi was first. And that it took so long for Coke to introduce a competitive product. Kind of surprising considering that Coke dominates Pepsi in the market place.
A little OT but Coke was first in 1963 with a product called Tab (for some reason their marketing types wanted to differentiate the "diet" product from coke) Coke's second offering (in 1966) was Fresca........and I must be getting really old if I remember this stuff......0 -
This is - more or less - my understanding of it as well. Will implement the lower intake of sugar (eg no sugar at all except one that is in real food eg fruit or veggies etc) for few months and see what happens.Having said that, I'm slowly beginning to believe that depending on where the calories are coming from, it will have an impact on our weight. For exampleeeeee, if the calories are coming from candy, that causes our insulin levels to become higher in our blood (from my understanding, don't quote me on this!) so that causes fat to be stored much easier.0 -
OP glad you posted this...it dovetails with a documentary i watched this weekend called "Fat Head":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evcNPfZlrZs
Really good Stuff!!!0 -
Have you got any scientific papers that de-bunk what Lutwig is saying about Fructose? I'd love to read them if you have. LOL
Several people have posted them. These two specifically debunk Lutwig/Lustig/Taubes:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Thank you - I'll read those.0 -
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.
Love it!!!
This made me spit laugh
:noway::happy: :laugh: :laugh:
In for the funny gifs!0 -
Have there been more recent studies done that link insulin to weight loss though?
Like I keep seeing candy/sugar spikes your insulin levels so it must be bad...but from my own (albeit not thorough) research it seems liek Insulin may be another one of those "red herrings"...at least for the majority of the population. Obviously there are medical reasons insulin is bad for some people's weight loss.
I can't find this review online, but I have a book in front of me that mentions a M.R. Freedman Review from Obesity Research (March 2001). A couple interesting points...
"Subjects consuming 1000 calorie diets containing 15 percent carbs had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming the same calories but 45% carbohydrates. Yet there was no difference in weight loss between the two groups. Another study in the review was cited where researchers studied 10 obese patients who were fed low cal (1,500 calories) liquid formula diets containing either 72% or 0% carbs for four weeks before switching. A significant reduction in insulin levels was noted for the subjects consuming the 0% carb formula. Refeeding the high carb formula resulted in a marked increase in insulin. However patients lost .75-2kg a week, irrespective of caloric distribution"
Book: Should I Eat The Yolk by Jamie Hale
Now that was 12 years ago so if there are new studies that show the opposite - could someone link me. I am generally curious about this topic. Also what medical reasons require one to worry about insulin (outside of diabetes). I am not asking to prove anything wrong - I am generally curious about this subject, and want to learn more.0 -
I couldn't agree more with this so will just "sign it"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.
0 -
A lot of people are oversimplifying here. Of course you can lose weight eating sugar. You can lose weight eating anything. But most people will get better weight loss (and better satiety) from a diet that is lower in processed carbs, lower on the glycemic index, an dthat of course includes (but is not limited to) table sugar. It means that that the faster your body can access the sugars in the food and turn them to glucose, the more of a problem you'll have. That's why steel-cut oats are so much better for you than instant oatmeal,
Here's the relevant study:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-dieting-not-all-calo
Of course, the study is on a limited population, but there's no particularly good reason to think it's different for others, and studies continue to back up its findings. The study is gold-standard: random assignment, and they controlled what the subjects ate.0 -
baloney.
you get fat by eating too many calories. THAT'S THE REASON. whether the calories are fats, proteins, or carbs matters very, very little (except for those with real medically diagnosed issues).
Not baloney. The type of calories-in can dictate how many calories-out just as much if not more then physical activity. It still all comes down to calories in vs out and I am not denying it. Our bodies don't burn all foods the same and that changes the amount of calories your body actually uses and how many it stores.0 -
Lol, paleo dieters aren't true paleo dieters. I have yet to see one post on here that actually forages for vegetables and fruits (not in a supermarket) and kills their game, strips it, and preps it. Don't forget that leftovers can't be refrigerated and no supplements are allowed.
Chuck Norris owns cavemen.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Bump to read all these links later0
-
You must know how many middle aged women hate you right now? J/K. But seriously, this is highly unusual for a woman in her 40s, that is not extremely active, to lose this much weight eating 2200 cals a day. Consider yourself very fortunate to have been blessed with that awesome metabolism. Please tell me that you were at least lifting heavy, or that you had a very physically active job? Or that you are 6 ft tall? Give me SOMETHING, please!
Congrats on your success. :flowerforyou:
Sorry - please don't hate me! :laugh:
I don't lift truly 'heavy' at all. My lifting is all medium weight/endurance-based/circuit-type workouts. I have followed heavy lifting programs before, and I didn't personally care for my results. Though I have seen others get great results from heavy lifting. It's just not my thing. I'm not swinging pink one-pounders around, but I'm not squatting my body weight either. I try to lift 2-3 times a week. But, my primary form of exercising is walking/hiking. I live in the mountains, so there are lots of tough hills for me to climb.
I have a completely sedentary job in a web design office, but I always make a point to move around frequently during my day. I've used both a BodyMedia and a FitBit, and I average about 14,000 steps a day.
Also... I'm 5'9". I think being tall and generally active goes a long way toward having a high TDEE.0 -
me too, for 6 weeks,well 7 now I manage to get rid of 4lbs only.. but since I want this to be a long term (for life) change, I guess I will get there (if I do not give up), so this time next year3 kg in 1 week??? hard to believe. I only want to lose 5-6 kg and it feels like I need forever for it.) you know what I mean 0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.0 -
bump0
-
Here's where you need to reexamine your statement. You're correct that the body hasn't significantly changed in 30,000 years. What is one of it's most efficient survival mechanisms?..........................Fat storage. Why are there so many overweight/obese now than before? Because the body CAN effectively hold all that fat. Over consumption is the issue. Plain and simple. Reduce consumption, and weight reduces.However, when you consider that our bodies in their present state haven't evolved significantly for at least 30,000 years and how much new 'food' we've introduced like sugar - it seems a rational argument that we simply haven't had time to adapt to these and they therefore present as toxins in significant quantities.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
While I agree with you, this topic has been hotly debated ad nauseum on mfp and any other nutrition related forum.
Even the so called experts do not agree. This being the case, I believe the weight/health conscious world falls into one of 2 camps. Those that are sensitive to sugars and starches and those who are not.
You know well which one of these groups you fall into and if you don't, eventually you will. This is because it will either work for you or not.
If limiting starches and sugars does not affect you, it's a bunch of broscience....and since this is your experience, it's quite valid.
However, if you are unfortunate enough to fall into the camp of sugars and starches producing a whole host of problems resulting in serious imbalances, well, it just plain sucks. It also adds a lot of resentment for the folks who have no sugar/starch issues because it's as if this particular person's experience is invalid.
Bottom line is, even though sugars and starches are not for me, I surely wish that people would concede that both sides of the equation are valid. Once armed with the information it's up to you to you to figure out what will work for you.
My personal pov is that i wish i took seriously all the warnings the OP was talking about instead of calling bs because it sounded like a conspiracy theory.
Pretty much was going to say thing. So much people get up in arms because "Well, this wasn't *my* experience, therefore yours must be invalid!", and then find a bunch of links backing up their preferred "diets." It's not hard to find a bunch of support (or, "support") for your choice because there's SO MUCH out there, on all sides of the equation.
I realize the whole point of these forums is to discuss, sometimes debate (although it frequently isn't a proper debate, but rather snarky or sometimes downright rude replies). But at what point do people just give up, and say, eff it all, I'll just do my own thing, and you do your own thing?
Unless you enjoy the arguing, then by all means, have at it!
Agreed!
Cue kitteh gifs.0 -
baloney.
you get fat by eating too many calories. THAT'S THE REASON. whether the calories are fats, proteins, or carbs matters very, very little (except for those with real medically diagnosed issues).
Not baloney. The type of calories-in can dictate how many calories-out just as much if not more then physical activity. It still all comes down to calories in vs out and I am not denying it. Our bodies don't burn all foods the same and that changes the amount of calories your body actually uses and how many it stores.
not in any appreciable way... and for purposes of weight loss and fitness, trying to count how many calories your body burns on a minute-by-minute basis is as absurd as trying to measure the number of molecules in the food you're eating. just take a macroscopic view of this whole process... that's a high enough level of abstraction to avoid the irrelevant details and focus on what's happening on a day-by-day basis with results you can actually see and measure.0 -
Lol, paleo dieters aren't true paleo dieters. I have yet to see one post on here that actually forages for vegetables and fruits (not in a supermarket) and kills their game, strips it, and preps it. Don't forget that leftovers can't be refrigerated and no supplements are allowed.
Chuck Norris owns cavemen.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is ridiculous...
The basis of paleo dieting is 'These foods make us sick. It's probably because as a species we aren't used to eating them. To avoid getting sick we will eat foods as close as we can to what we ate as we evolved to the humans we are now.'
It's not about living like a caveman, its about not becoming ill because you haven't adapted to eating grain.0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
a lot of us have on this site. you'll find lots of people on here who have lost 100+lbs without demonizing carbs/sugars and cutting them out of their diets.0 -
What i've found is that calories in vs. calories out is the basic principle to follow for effective weight-loss. In terms of altering body composition, you need to start fine-tuning macros, which in turn, will alter the thermic effect of food (how many calories are being burned through metabolising that food, for which each macronutrient has a different effect). For me, if I was to stick to fresh vegetables, lean meats and complex carbs at the same calorie deficit as I would eating whatever I like, i'd get better results in terms of inches lost with the 'clean' foods. I'd also have more energy, be more alert in general and have better concentration (all of which benefiting my workouts).0
-
True eating too many calories is what causes the weight gain, not sugar specifically however, sugar does (specifically simply carbs) spikes your blood sugar and then it drops (for most people/not all...I am one of most) and then I am hungry again almost immediately making me consume more calories then if I would have had something healthy and not a simple carb loaded with sugar. Most people will eat again because they are hungry again...thus eating too many calories and gaining weight.
I do better eating low glycemic foods, sticking to complex carbs; but I'm not perfect. I'd love to stay away from sweets/simple carbs 100% of the time...but I do like to eat them once in a while.0 -
Lol, paleo dieters aren't true paleo dieters. I have yet to see one post on here that actually forages for vegetables and fruits (not in a supermarket) and kills their game, strips it, and preps it. Don't forget that leftovers can't be refrigerated and no supplements are allowed.
Chuck Norris owns cavemen.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is ridiculous...
The basis of paleo dieting is 'These foods make us sick. It's probably because as a species we aren't used to eating them. To avoid getting sick we will eat foods as close as we can to what we ate as we evolved to the humans we are now.'
It's not about living like a caveman, its about not becoming ill because you haven't adapted to eating grain.
Hence why the paleo diet is more based in fantasy than reality0 -
While I agree with you, this topic has been hotly debated ad nauseum on mfp and any other nutrition related forum.
Even the so called experts do not agree. This being the case, I believe the weight/health conscious world falls into one of 2 camps. Those that are sensitive to sugars and starches and those who are not.
You know well which one of these groups you fall into and if you don't, eventually you will. This is because it will either work for you or not.
If limiting starches and sugars does not affect you, it's a bunch of broscience....and since this is your experience, it's quite valid.
However, if you are unfortunate enough to fall into the camp of sugars and starches producing a whole host of problems resulting in serious imbalances, well, it just plain sucks. It also adds a lot of resentment for the folks who have no sugar/starch issues because it's as if this particular person's experience is invalid.
Bottom line is, even though sugars and starches are not for me, I surely wish that people would concede that both sides of the equation are valid. Once armed with the information it's up to you to you to figure out what will work for you.
My personal pov is that i wish i took seriously all the warnings the OP was talking about instead of calling bs because it sounded like a conspiracy theory.
Pretty much was going to say thing. So much people get up in arms because "Well, this wasn't *my* experience, therefore yours must be invalid!", and then find a bunch of links backing up their preferred "diets." It's not hard to find a bunch of support (or, "support") for your choice because there's SO MUCH out there, on all sides of the equation.
I realize the whole point of these forums is to discuss, sometimes debate (although it frequently isn't a proper debate, but rather snarky or sometimes downright rude replies). But at what point do people just give up, and say, eff it all, I'll just do my own thing, and you do your own thing?
Unless you enjoy the arguing, then by all means, have at it!
it's never valid to allow faulty assumptions/conclusions to go unchallenged. that's the underlying principle of science. so if you think weight loss and nutrition is voodoo and magic, then i suppose you can adopt the mantra that "what works for one person might not work for another". i personally cannot accept that, because it's not true. the OP made assertions that need to be challenged, and many MFP members are rightly challenging them.
Well don't let logic get in your way then :drinker:
For me, I choose the ignore button.
I've got better things to do with my time than trying to teach a pig to sing.0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
a lot of us have on this site. you'll find lots of people on here who have lost 100+lbs without demonizing carbs/sugars and cutting them out of their diets.
Are you one of those people?
I want people to reply individually because while many people are claiming losing weight on high sugar diets, the research is mainly obesity related. So whether or not you are/were obese while losing the weight changes how relevant your experience in terms of the CICO theory.0 -
Normally by this point I'd be pulling out the popcorn. However, just for this thread:
Donuts, anyone?0 -
Surely with the sheer amount of people who have diagnosed diabetic, diagnosed prediabetic, and undiagnosed prediabetic it would be better to curb the 'sweet tooth' holding people up?
As most people dont appear to know something is wrong with them (prediabetic) with a approx population of 311mil, thats close to 1 in 3 people have a problem.Data from the 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet (released Jan. 26, 2011)
Total prevalence of diabetes
Total: 25.8 million children and adults in the United States—8.3% of the population—have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 18.8 million people
Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people
Prediabetes: 79 million people*
New Cases: 1.9 million new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in people aged 20 years and older in 2010.
* In contrast to the 2007 National Diabetes Fact Sheet, which used fasting glucose data to estimate undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, the 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet uses both fasting glucose and A1C levels to derive estimates for undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes. These tests were chosen because they are most frequently used in clinical practice.
from www.diabetes.org0 -
Nice to read opposing views (especially from the scientists - thanks for that).
I guess you have to look at upsides versus downsides right:-
A) If Lutwig is right and I cut all sugar out except from eating fruit - then I stand to get potentially massive health gains (or disease avoidance) for the price of losing out on the taste of ice cream or chocolate (which I definitely ate way too much of).
If Lutiwg is wrong and I wont get any disease prevention, the only thing I'm losing is the taste of ice cream or chocolate right? I mean there are no nutritionists I've heard of suggesting we actually need to eat extra sugar in our foods to survive right? We clearly do not or our ancestors wouldn't have survived.
If you look at this with an un-biased (non-sugar addicted) mindset - I think it's objectively clear that what you 'lose' in cutting sugar is zero to trivial (taste pleasure) versus the potential upsides if Lutwig is correct (major disease avoidance). If we were talking about an essential macro-nutrient here like protein or fat, then the decision would be more complicated but this is sugar we are talking about here - humans didn't even have it in significant amounts until Barbados was settled in the 18th Century.
Addicted to Pleasure - Sugar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions