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

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.

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

you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.

There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.

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.

...Yes it goes on and on my friend....
Some people, started singing it not knowing what it does....
And they'll continue singing it forever just because...
This is the song that never ends...
Yes it goes on and on my friend....

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

you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.

There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.

how long are they on those keto diets though?

:laugh:

try running a marathon without eating any carbs for a week beforehand.

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.

Define "loads." I don't think anyone would claim that you could eat "loads" of sugar. You have missed the whole point, which is context. I reached 263 pounds and have lost 65 since starting MFP. I eat a dessert almost every day and include it as part of my carbohydrates and fats for the day. My macro ratio is 45/25/30.

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.

Anyone claiming that 'a calorie is a calorie' is implying that you could eat any level of sugar and lose weight just fine.

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

you can live without carbs, but carbs are ready energy for your body. deprive yourself for long and you'll feel sluggish and tired and your mental acuity may suffer as well.

There are hundreds of people on keto diets that disagree with you there.

how long are they on those keto diets though?

:laugh:

try running a marathon without eating any carbs for a week beforehand.

I've seen people claim to be on keto diets for at least a year. That's pretty long term. I've been fairly low carb for over 4 months, no energy problems here.

I didn't say anything about running a marathon. You said people feel sluggish, tired and lack mental acuity on low carb diets whereas I can live my normal day to day life with no energy problems and work a mentally challenging job without needing to eat lots of carbs.

Training for a marathon is a special case and yes, you need to eat carbs to do that. Not everyone has to be running marathons to be a fit and healthy person though.

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 :-



"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