Sugar Over but Calories Under

The source may have no impact in terms of weight gain, but it has a great deal of relevance with respect to living a healthy life.

No one (I think) disagrees with this.

It's semantics again. If the above is what you mean when you say "calories in vs. calories out is flawed" you are not technically wrong. But the other posts in this thread were very good about qualifying that statement with something like "with regards to weight loss". "Flawed" is a little vague for the point you're trying to make. It would be better characterized, in my opinion, as potentially misleading if not appropriately qualified. In the case of this thread, though, again in my opinion, the qualifier was well stated.

Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).

What?! Science to back this up please?!

I guess from a purely weight loss point of view no. That said, IMO, sugar can be problematic if it comes at the expense of other vital nutrients. In other words, if you are reducing your minimum protein and or fat requirements in order to eat more deserts. That said again, if you are hitting all your numbers and can eat sugar while still remaining in a deficit, then I see it being of no consequence.

I eat a lot of fruit, so I go way over on sugar. Therefore, I don't bother tracking it. I'm not going to give up fruit.

Me too! Most days I'm over on sugar because of fruit, when I look through the diary to see the biggest 'offender' it's often the humble apple.

i'm not sure if anyone has said it yet - but sometimes it can be detrimental to weight loss!
if you are losing weight and eating that amount of sugar, then you aren't carb sensitive. but if you see no improvement then you may be like me, i am quite carb sensitive.
the more processed the carbs are/sugary, the higher the glycemic index of the food is, which makes your insulin spike and also makes fat storage a lot easier.
i've done endless research on this, as i have an unfortunate body type - endomorphic.
understand your body type and learn how to count your macros because every body is different - and for people like me, a calorie isn't just a calorie!
if you can eat lots of sugars i am so so envious though haha. best wishes with your goals xx

i forgot to add - your macronutrients do also affect your body composition. If you do lose weight with high sugar intake, your bodyfat percentage may stay the same or raise. for me, it isn't the number on the scale, it's bf%
maybe try slightly reducing and then switching some of your caloric sources to protein and fats - fats are actually quite beneficial for weight loss! obviously if you eat them moderately haha. i have a very high fat and protein diet - and i'm down to 45 kgs with 15% BF from 60 kgs with 26% BF

Since you've done so much research on this. I'd love to see your sources and the science behind it. This all sounds broscience and 100% false. With the exception of macronutrient.ratios having effect on body comp (btw sugar is a micro). I eat close to 100g of sugar a day and started at 31%+ BF. I haven't had my BF % tested recently but I've definitely seen a huge drop. My composition has completely changed.

Weight gain is caused by carbohydrates, sugar is a carbohydrate (a tasty one as someone put).


Since I have caused a mass battle in this post, I am sure this one will also get responses. The best book I ever read on this subject was Why we get fat: and what to do about it. A great read for those who want to understand more

First sentence is false. Caloric surplus causes weight gain.

Second statement is exactly where you are going wrong. First off - read more books. Not being a **** either, because when I originally read that book I fell for the cherry picking of science that Taubes employs too.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html <---read the comments too
http://weightology.net/?p=265 <----amazing breakdown of a chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories (this was his first book that the book you mentioned is based off of)
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bray-review-of-gcbc.pdf <-- bray review of Good Calories bad calories

Thanks for these articles tedrickp. I will withdraw my comments and return to the books. :happy: Just to note, I don't use an Atkins type diet. However, I do try and reduce my overall calories intake mainly through reduction in snacking and Coca-Cola. This might explain why I find the Taupes information so appealing.

In a word - yes.

Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it

Sugar is sugar. .. is sugar. There's no good or bad.

There is such a thing as refined and natural sugar. Refined sugar from sugary drinks etc, is very different to the naturally occuring sugars in fruit. You're right that sugar is sugar, but there are different forms of sugar. I would much rather get all my sugar from fruit than coca-cola

at the molecular level all sugar is the same...when your body breaks down sugar, it is breaking down sugar..it is not saying "oh this is refined sugar and must be bad" or "oh, this is fruit sugar so it is good"....

Notice that in my previous comment I put 'good' and 'bad' in inverted commas - as to say there isn't technically such thing as good or bad sugar. It's my way of looking at sources of sugar, as I said, I would rather get all my sugar from natural sources, rather than knowing I've eaten a load of sugar from sources that have no nutritional value or benefit, such as sugary drinks.

That's fine if that's what YOU like doing but that doesn't change the fact that sugar is sugar... As long as I'm meeting my macronutrients, I will eat ice cream, caramel turtles, and a soda. Fruits are nice to get fiber and vitamins but if we're talking just sugar, doesn't matter.

Read this from a health expert, Dean Johnson.

***
Refined sugars:
Let’s start with ‘bad’ sugars. Yes, that’s right, refined sugars are the bad sugars. They are also the most common variety, the type that you see most often in the grocery store.

Refined sugar is bad for your body for any number of reasons, but it only takes two of them to really illustrate the fact.

1) Refined sugar has absolutely no nutritional value. Though it is derived from sugar canes & sugar beets, every ounce of nutrition is squeezed out of it during manufacture.

2) Refined sugar can have harmful chemicals included in it. Because it goes through a bleaching process after it is extracted from a plant, it isn’t uncommon for refined sugar to contain small amounts of carbon dioxide, phosphoric acid, or calcium hydroxide in it. While a second processing step is geared to eliminate these harmful substances from the finished product, it ends up doing more harm than good as the sugar is often run through a beef bone char as well.

Simply put, refined sugars are always bad. Stay away from them. They’re the kind of sugars that are found in almost every processed food, examples which include sodas, sweets, & baked goods. You might have also heard of refined sugars referred to as ‘empty calories.’

Unrefined Sugars:
‘Good sugars’ are sometimes known as unrefined sugars. Though that is a little misleading. In almost every instance, they have been slightly refined during their processing (but nowhere near as much as refined sugars). Because of this, unrefined sugars are often referred to as raw sugars.

The biggest benefit of raw sugar is that it retains many of the nutrients that it had before its minimal processing. This means that there is actually a reason to put it in your body other than just its taste. A few of these nutrients include phosphorus, calcium, iron, magnesium, & potassium.

Another reason that unrefined sugars are better than refined sugars is because they haven’t been extensively processed. No chemicals are used in processing so there is no chance that you’ll be consuming something that is dangerous to your body. In addition, the bone char step is also discarded (since the sugar doesn’t need to be unnaturally bleached).

Raw honey & raw maple syrup are two excellent examples of raw sugars. Obviously they can’t be used in everything but they do make an excellent sugar substitute in many cases. If you drink coffee or tea, just think about how many spoonful’s of sugar you could cut from your daily diet if you used a small quirt of honey as a sweetener instead.

Natural Sugars:
Finally, the best kinds of sugars of all are natural sugars. These are very similar to unrefined & raw sugars.

Natural sugars are the types that occur naturally in many plants that we eat on a daily basis. Because these sugars are completely unprocessed & bound alongside dozens of other nutrients, they are completely fine for you to be eating. In fact, they are great to eat!

Fruits & vegetables of all kinds contain natural sugars. They are an essential part of any healthy eating plan.
***

As this blog suggests, there are such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' sugars when it comes to health. Everyone on MFP (and elsewhere) always talks about how weight loss should be sustainable and involve *healthy* eating - it should be about leading a healthier lifestyle overall, not just losing as much weight as possible. You're right, as long as you're in calorie deficit you will lose weight, but common sense would suggest you should get calories from nutritious, wholesome food; not junk.

Back to the OP - yes you will lose weight, but depends on the type of sugar you're eating which will impact health. No point looking good on the outside if it's all bad on the inside...

As a few people have said it is black and white