A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Replies
-
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.
I believe the argument everyone else is making is that they are obese because they eat too much of all the things that you mentioned...
If they were to eat in a calorie deficit and have a little pizza or a sweet once in a while they would lose weight and be healthier..
I eat pasta about once a week and maintain 13% body fat....I probably eat rice once a night...as long as I fit it into my calorie and carb goal for the day, that is what matters...0 -
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.
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences says that the human brain requires the equivalent of 130 grams of carbohydrate a day to function optimally (as a minimum). without that, you'll have trouble concentrating and mental acuity will diminish.
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-tables
i'm sure you're the exception though. :laugh:
Good thing my body can create glucose for itself even when I don't eat carbohydrates!!0 -
I'm probably not adding anything new to this thread but I spent 5 weeks in Italy about 5 years ago and had a minimum of two gelatos a day, everyday. Yes I know that's horrible for you but I wasn't really eating too much of anything else because it was too hot so I stayed within a reasonable calorie-intake range. Point is I lost about 15 pounds in that time. I guess sugar reacts differently in everyone's body.
I don't think your point is bad though. Too much sugar isn't really good for anyone and I don't mean for weight loss0 -
It's interesting but single data point is not proof or evidence in the most loose sense of terms even.
It's great that its working for you.
I've lost somewhere between 600 and 800 lbs in 20 years (yoyo) I've done it on atkins, low fat, low cal, low sugar, fasting, intermittent fasting, high carb, juicing, hell i lost 60lbs on fast food one time, etc... they all work at losing the weight.
A calorie is a calorie... from a weight loss perspective strictly. I can eat meat, carbs, or fat and lose weight just fine as long as I'm at a solid caloric deficit of 500 calories per day per lb per week. It's that simple.
My grandmother is a rail, all she eats is sugar (literally 90% of her calories come from hard candy per day.) Shrug.
Now a calorie isn't just a calorie when it comes to health, you are FAR better off with adequate protein from healthy animals not loaded with steroids and antibiotics, heart healthy fats, and carbs with good micro-nutrients from lots of fresh veggies.0 -
NuSI, Taubes and Lustig, is supposedly nonprofit yet take a look at their contributions, and who they're coming from. Once again, no money left from the tobacco suits, there's been groups of attorneys+ chipping away at big food for 20+ years now.
" Why would a billionaire energy trader-turned-philanthropist throw his foundation's dough behind a new think tank that wants to challenge scientific assumptions about obesity?
John Arnold, 38, whose move from Enron to a spectacularly successful hedge fund got him on the list of wealthiest Americans, isn't crazy about talking to the press. But certainly his decision with his wife Laura to back a newly launched operation called the Nutrition Science Initiative, or NuSI, is an intriguing one." $5 million."
...and so on.
I'm not going to get in to food politics here, I can do that elsewhere. So...I'll give you the best diet book ever, for free!
0 -
I tell you what OP... if you really want to prove to us that sugar is the problem, then continue your diet as you do, but eat 1,000 calories above maintenance. Then, report back to us your results.0
-
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 - Sugarhttp://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.
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences says that the human brain requires the equivalent of 130 grams of carbohydrate a day to function optimally (as a minimum). without that, you'll have trouble concentrating and mental acuity will diminish.
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-tables
i'm sure you're the exception though. :laugh:
Good thing my body can create glucose for itself even when I don't eat carbohydrates!!
oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.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.
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.
Anyone claiming that 'a calorie is a calorie' is implying that you could eat any level of sugar and lose weight just fine.
Well of course you can eat small amounts of it and be just fine.
A calorie is a specific unit used to measure energy, just like a pound is a unit to measure weight, or a mile is a unit to measure distance. You are confusing calories with nutrients. How this relates to sugar..... sucrose is pure energy, void of micronutrients. Consuming sugar increases the "Energy-in" half of the equation. If it leads to more energy and more exercise, then it also effects the "Energy-out" half as well. It's easy to over-consume sugar since it's so high in calories. But you certainly can not eat what I would call "loads" of it and expect to lose weight. But to me, "loads" of sugar would be like 3 or 4 pieces of cake or a half a dozen cookies. To someone else, just one piece of cake might be "loads," so maybe they cut a piece in half instead, or just eat half a cookie. To another, eating a half dozen cookies or three or four doughnuts is a rev-up for a nice, long run. It depends on the context, and it especially depends on the "Energy-out" side of the equation.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.
I eat ice cream, chocolate, potato chips, bread, cookies, alcohol, whatever I want - DAILY. As long as I'm getting adequate protein and fat, and I stay in a deficit, I lose weight - that's what "moderation" is all about, for me anyway. My ticker says 94 pounds lost, but that's scale weight. I have no clue how much I've gained in muscle, but I think it's fairly safe to say I've lost more than 100 lbs of fat. My macros are set to 35C/35P/30F.
Have I done the low-carb/low-sugar thing? Sure, but I was miserable - my sweet tooth and I have lived together for over 40 years and it can be a noisy bugger when ignored!
And it didn't work, beacuse it wasn't a lifestyle change I could live with for very long. I want to be healthy AND happy with my choices about food. 0 -
oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.
But I'm not sluggish and I have plenty of energy and people on even lower carb than I, for longer periods that I, are not having problems with energy or mental sluggishness.0 -
Lol, this thread is getting hilarious. Lots of other countries who don't have obesity issues eat LOTS of sugar products. They just don't eat TONS of sugar laden products daily.
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 -
Obese by 'BMI' standards and eating large amounts of carbs.For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
Also at some points have eaten proportions of carbs and lost weight.
I wonder if 'these foods' really do make most of those people sick.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.
I have not seen any evidence that the foods we may have eaten while evolving to our current state are 'healthier' for us than we eat now.
To presume that evolution gives us the chance of perfection if we match it shows a great misunderstanding of the concept of evolution (by 'natural' selection.)
I rather suspect that paelo people generally suffered a lore more illnesses and certainly were more likely to die younger. So from that, I expect the little data we have won't point to them generally being healthier than we are today, even if that were the case.0 -
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 - Sugarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1CM7zXK5w0 -
oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.
But I'm not sluggish and I have plenty of energy and people on even lower carb than I, for longer periods that I, are not having problems with energy or mental sluggishness.
a) i don't know your dietary intake of carbs
b) you can't self-diagnose sluggishness. that's like asking a frog to guess the temperature of the water in the pot it's in as it's brought to a slow boil.0 -
0
-
If you can't say no to sugar, then sure, avoid it. But not everybody lacks the mental fortitude to turn away sugar.0 -
oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.
But I'm not sluggish and I have plenty of energy and people on even lower carb than I, for longer periods that I, are not having problems with energy or mental sluggishness.
a) i don't know your dietary intake of carbs
b) you can't self-diagnose sluggishness. that's like asking a frog to guess the temperature of the water in the pot it's in as it's brought to a slow boil.
Are you serious?!! You cant self diagnose sluggishness?
Who diagnoses sluggishness for you? Do you have to go to the doctor and take the sluggishness test? When you go to the doctor and complain you are feeling tired and sluggish does your doctor say 'hold on there! We cant know if you're sluggish or not until we perform some mental acuity tests!'
What a ridiculous thing to say.0 -
Obese by 'BMI' standards and eating large amounts of carbs.For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
Also at some points have eaten proportions of carbs and lost weight.
I wonder if 'these foods' really do make most of those people sick.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.
I have not seen any evidence that the foods we may have eaten while evolving to our current state are 'healthier' for us than we eat now.
To presume that evolution gives us the chance of perfection if we match it shows a great misunderstanding of the concept of evolution (by 'natural' selection.)
I rather suspect that paelo people generally suffered a lore more illnesses and certainly were more likely to die younger. So from that, I expect the little data we have won't point to them generally being healthier than we are today, even if that were the case.
these paleo nutters make claims about "inflammation" and how their diet fights that and thus makes them healthier. the problem is that it's a nebulous concept the way they use it and there is no medical or scientific research on this subject and the paleo diet that i'm aware of. it all sounds vaguely pseudo-scientific and they make all sorts of claims that non-scientific people who desperately want to believe do believe, but that doesn't pass muster for me.
wanna cut down on "inflammation"? take an advil every morning. maybe that's the next big diet fad... "the ibuprofen diet"0 -
Here's what I think:
Sugar, and carbs in general, may or may not be bad for you. They may or may not be less bad for you in moderation.
But here's what I'm certain of:
If you eat a paleo-like diet, that is, a diet that consists mostly of meats, vegetables, and other unprocessed foods, you will probably be eating at a calorie deficit and you will probably be eating food that is good for you.
Yes, you can become fat eating good food, and all through the ages there are records of fat people. A glutton is a glutton.
But I can sit down and eat an entire tin of breakfast cinnamon buns with icing, because it tastes so damn good!. But put a serving bowl of scrambled eggs in front of me, and after about 2-3 eggs worth of the stuff I've about had enough because it's just not that captivating.
Not to mention the fact that eating sugary things definitely spikes your blood sugar and you definitely feel hungry when your blood sugar level crashes, compelling you to seek out the yummy food again.0 -
I must be a unique butterfly-unicorn-wizard, I lost my weight eating between 100-200g of sugar a day.
No Foods are Inherently Fattening.
Consider this study showing that “reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
Or perhaps this study which found “diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.”- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101
The astounding results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently fattening!
Flexible dieting
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/117075500 -
I'm glad I'm "special" and can have sugar daily and still be fit and lean. I should pass my genetics on to others.:laugh:
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 -
My brother swears by this no sugar philsophy. He does power lifting and constantly building more mass muscle. Since Im not a huge meat eater, it made me very sluggish to just eat mean and veggies, when I tried to adapt his philosphy exactly. Anyways, when I do eat simple sugars, I just can't stop...it's like a drug high. So I have adapted that for me, there is no such that as moderation when it comes to sugar, cause on bite can be to much. I do still like to eat fruit, and that's one thing Im not giving up. I believe that if it came from the earth and grows from the ground it's good for me.0
-
oh, you can live without carbohydrates. i'm not arguing that point. you just won't have the readily available energy you'd have if you ate carbohydrates and you'll likely be sluggish.
But I'm not sluggish and I have plenty of energy and people on even lower carb than I, for longer periods that I, are not having problems with energy or mental sluggishness.
a) i don't know your dietary intake of carbs
b) you can't self-diagnose sluggishness. that's like asking a frog to guess the temperature of the water in the pot it's in as it's brought to a slow boil.
Are you serious?!! You cant self diagnose sluggishness?
Who diagnoses sluggishness for you? Do you have to go to the doctor and take the sluggishness test? When you go to the doctor and complain you are feeling tired and sluggish does your doctor say 'hold on there! We cant know if you're sluggish or not until we perform some mental acuity tests!'
What a ridiculous thing to say.
you ask the people around you if they notice a difference. they will have a better perspective than you will. it's the same with drunks. drunk people never think they are as drunk as they actually are. it takes an outsider to see how drunk they truly are.
you are claiming that you are not sluggish. i am just saying that you probably have a bias and cannot be the one to make that determination.
anyway, i don't really care what you do. this discussion has gotten absurd. eat zero carbs for all i care. you're an anonymous person on a free forum that has clearly fallen for the low carb propaganda. do whatever floats your boat. it matters not to me.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?
.
250lbs.0 -
Sugar: The “Poisonous” Sweet?
Readers of National Geographic who are accustomed to reading about exotic animals and locations may be disappointed when they pick up their August addition. Rather than lions and tigers or Mount Everest being featured on the cover, the top story for this new addition will profile a humdrum foodstuff: Sugar.
While some may find the article’s 1,400 word history of sugar a dazzling read, the key notes are devoted to convincing people that a perfectly safe food ingredient is the modern-day plague. Robert Lustig makes an appearance to shill for his dubious theories, which gives an idea where the piece is going.
According to one Richard Johnson it’s not even your fault that you decided to lay on the couch and watch television all day. No, it’s the sugar that kept you watching Animal Planet instead of hiking the wilderness:
[Americans] eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. ‘The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good . . . but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.’
In Lustig’s and Johnson’s view, sugar controls your mind at every twist. It’s an appealing view for the food cops, since it denies personal responsibility and empowers trial lawyers, but it lacks scientific validity. Researchers from Cambridge University investigated this notion of “food addiction” and determined that “criteria for substance dependence translate poorly to food-related behaviors.”
You would think a publication like National Geographic would use the concern about obesity as an opportunity to get everyone more interested in exploring the great outdoors. But as we see on an all-too-frequent basis nowadays, it’s just another Food Police hit piece on Americans’ favorite sweets.0 -
I abstain from sugar and its processed cousins...have since 1978, before a lot of you were born.
But that is because I'm an admitted "Sugarholic" and couldn't eat just one piece like many of my MFP friends, and was tired of yo-yo dieting. I will never give up my fruit, or limit myself to one piece a day as you do.
As long as my calorie count stays at maintenance level, I can eat all the fresh fruit, vegetables, good carbs, poultry and fish/seafood I want.
I am healthy, active and happy gal of almost 73!0 -
I'm glad I'm "special" and can have sugar daily and still be fit and lean. I should pass my genetics on to others.:laugh:
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
Not a personal attack, but your ticker says 15lb out of 30 lost - how did a certified trainer get so overweight?0 -
If you ate a crap ton of sugar but still created a deficit, you'd lose weight. Sugar does not break the laws of thermodynamics.0
-
By engaging in deliberate cycles of bulking and cutting, in order to achieve the muscle mass and definition they desire. Also, "overweight" here is probably misleading.I'm glad I'm "special" and can have sugar daily and still be fit and lean. I should pass my genetics on to others.:laugh:
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
Not a personal attack, but your ticker says 15lb out of 30 lost - how did a certified trainer get so overweight?0 -
thanks tweetr0
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
- 426 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