A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
That's what makes me want to pull my hair out when I read these threads. I think 90% of the posters on both sides do agree about what constitutes a healthy long term approach to weight loss: A sustainable diet that is high in micronutrients and fibre and sufficient in protein and fat, and creates a caloric deficit.
Both sides can be extremely vague about their approach - "I don't eat sugar and I lose weight" vs "I eat ice cream every day - only calories matter", and each side either honestly or disingenuously assumes that the other side has no other guidelines they follow. I think the MFP veterans are guilty of building strawmen in their arguments to some extent, but you also have to remember that newbies may not understand that there is a lot more implied than just what is stated.
Just cutting out sugar does not cause weight loss. However, some people find that they are less likely to overeat if they strictly reduce or even eliminate added fats and sugars and use whole food sources that are more satiating and contain more micronutrients. they feel full on fewer calories, and find that their cravings for sugary foods subside in time.
CICO does not ensure a healthy diet. However, for people who want to keep eating some less nutrient dense "fun food", using discretionary calories after macro and micro nutrient requirements are met is a good way to ensure long term adherence. They don't want to feel they are depriving themselves and risk returning to their old habits out of frustration.
I know that's stating the obvious for a lot of the old timers, but don't assume that people who receive no nutrition education in school and are trying to lose weight for the first time without a rigid diet program understand this. If they did, they wouldn't be asking. The constant arguments without full explanation are likely to make them even more confused. You know what you are trying to say. I (think I) know what you are trying to say. A lot of noobs take what you say at face value.
And please note I said 90% - I realize there are posters who think that cutting carbs (or fat, or anything else) means you can ignore calorie balance, and posters who think that 1200 calories of literally any foodstuff is a perfectly healthy approach regardless of fibre, protein, micronutrients, etc., but I'm not talking about these fringe dwellers, who are a lot rarer than you probably think.
Thank you MakePeasNotWar,
I don't usually repeat previous long posts in my reply but this is too good to let pass as 90% of the time, we are all meaning the same thing and are at constant battle over nothing.
You are one of those constantly making up straw men about people allegedly justifying eating sweets 100% of the time and also claim yourself that sugar is "the devil," though. That does seem different than what the people arguing that it's perfectly healthy to eat a balanced, nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet that might include some sweets or other less nutrient dense foods are saying.
It seems to me there is a major difference here. The posters arguing for moderation, or at least that moderation can be a completely healthy approach, are looking at the nutrient content of an overall diet and focusing on getting the right number of calories (however that is achieved) and adequate nutrients and macro mix. The others--including many of those who come in going on about "sugar" being the problem or making them fat (darn that sugar being such a strong leader!)--seem to want to oversimplify in lieu of actually making a real examination of their diet or understanding nutrition. It's like that poster who wanted to know if she could eat "clean" even if she refused to eat vegetables. If you actually eat a good diet overall, you obviously aren't going to be eating added sugar 100% of the time or even in excess, so it's a total straw man.
And in my mind claiming that there are some posters who think that eating a balanced nutritious diet with added sugar in moderation means Dunkin Donuts and KFC 100% of the time are being insulting by assuming people are stupid. Nutrition or what a balanced diet is really isn't rocket science, and I try to act as if most people are capable of dressing themselves and figuring out how to eat in a reasonable fashion.
And "what you eat doesn't matter" isn't an oversimplification?
No, as absolutely everyone who has read any of the relevant threads would know, unless they are being willfully ignorant for some odd reason of their own, it is a short way of saying: "all else equal, what you eat doesn't matter for weight loss, calories do." No one has ever said that what you eat doesn't matter for other reasons, such as health or sustainability, although what the arguments on that are typically about is whether eating some sugar in moderation is less healthy than trying to eat none. I've never seen anyone announce that they eat sugar in great excess and plan to cut it down and have people criticize that. Seems like common sense, to me.
I'm on another thread right now where someone is asking for help with sugar cravings. She is saying she eats sugar in excess, is planning on cutting it down, and is asking for advie. There are several posters attacking her and saying she lacks willpower. Yes, you can get attacked on the forum for saying that you eat a lot of sugar and plan to cut it down
0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »http://superhumanradio.com/the-role-of-dietary-sugars-and-de-novo-lipogenesis-in-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease.html
Hint: Still comes down to calorie intake.
"Lustig must be blushing by now.
Yah, probably. But we aren’t done yet. What about all the talk of this de novo lipogenesis? This is the term used for the process whereby fatty acids are created from non-lipid precursors such as fructose, glucose, or amino acids. Using isotopic glucose or fructose, which lets us “follow” it through the body and see where it ends up, it was demonstrated that consuming 0.75g/kg bodyweight of fructose or glucose didn’t live up to Lustig’s expectations. Specifically, only 0.05% and 0.15% of fructose were converted to fatty acids and glycerol, respectively, while values after glucose consumption were close to 0%. These results have been confirmed by a systemic review of isotopic tracer studies that concluded the immediate metabolic fate of ingested fructose was not into triglycerides (<1%), but towards oxidation (45%) and conversion to glucose (41%)."
In the literature review referenced by your opinion piece:
"Likewise, Zelber-Sagi et al. found significantly higher carbohydrate consumption from soft drinks in ultrasound-diagnosed NAFLD patients compared to controls (23 vs. 12 g/day) [92]"
" while in patients diagnosed with or without NAFLD during liver resections or biopsies, the intakes of those identified with NAFLD pathology had significantly higher fructose intakes than those without (52 vs. 42 g/day) [93]."
Non-Alcoholic Fatty liver disease associated with 23g intake sugar from soda/day.
"A decrease in total fructose consumption by 50% for six months resulted in a reduction of liver fat in adults with NAFLD [105]."
"a recent study over 6 weeks suggests that sucrose-sweetened beverages are more lipogenic when consumed in-between, rather than with meals [107] "
"...large doses of fructose are lipogenic and have adverse metabolic effects."
"Pragmatically, in the context of epidemic levels of obesity, reducing dietary sugar consumption is a prudent public health message
Holy mother of god. Which part of 'extreme versus moderation' are you having difficulty with?
I am convinced they are a troll, or have terrible reading comprehension.
This is the most current(2014)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/12/5679/htm
Excess energy, not sugar, let alone fructose main culprit behind NAFLD, study says, previous studies simply flawed, scientist say: "The use of hypercaloric, supra-physiological doses in intervention trials has been a major confounding factor and whether or not dietary sugars, including fructose, at typically consumed population levels, effect hepatic lipogenesis and NAFLD pathogenesis in humans independently of excess energy remains unresolved."
First of all, this is not a study, it is a literature review. The scientist is not saying that fructose has no impact on NAFLD (fatty liver disease), just that the literature to date is not enough to say that it has based on the hypercaloric doses of fructose used in the studies reviewed. Fructose has not been shown to be innocent, there is a pathway, there is evidence supporting. But the opinion of the author of the paper is that the question is unresolved with the evidence at hand. My argument is not about NAFLD, however.
This paper states that sugar is converted to fat, confirming my argument.
"Fructose has been scrutinized in part because its hepatic metabolism differs from glucose and high fructose intakes have been shown to alter hepatic insulin sensitivity, increase lipogenesis and ectopic lipid disposition in human [13,14,15] as well as rodent studies"
Less than 1% of fructose is converted to fat.
If you have been reading the studies posted, you will know that not only does fructose not downregulate DNL the way other carbs do, it actually stimulates DNL.
Accoriding to Eric's opinion piece:
http://superhumanradio.com/the-role-of-dietary-sugars-and-de-novo-lipogenesis-in-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24848492
"Merely walking about 13,000 steps per day significantly attenuated the adverse effects of adding 75 grams of fructose to the diet in the form of 40 ounces of soda per day."
There is 75g of fructose in 3-4 regular sodas (sweetened with HFCS). Not a large amount. 15% of daily calories at 2000 calorie TDEE. 3-4 sodas in one day (75g of fructose) constitutes overfeeding of fructose, and resulted in 88% increase in trigliceride production. The students in the study were eating at maintenence (no weight change over 2 weeks). 13,000 steps burns about 650 calories. It would take the equivalent of burning 72 grams of fat to counteract the effect of 75 grams of fructose. 72 grams of fat isn't a lot, I know, but seeing as the fat created by fructose deposits particularly in the liver, which only weighs about 3 pounds to begin with, you can see where there would be a problem.
In the study, you could see the impact of fructose on satiation. The students automatically adjusted their intake to compensate for the extra calories taken in. This does not happen when sodas are sweetened by HFCS.
Consuming HFCS and sucrose when you are athletic or recomping isn't an issue. Recompers need to fuel their workouts, and get the exercise needed to counteract the negative effects of extra added sugars. But if you are one of the posters who is being told "what you eat doesn't matter" and "you don't have to work out to lose weight" you are getting advice that may have negative impacts on your long term health.0 -
If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems one of those things that couldn't possibly be gleaned from any observational study that didn't also involve the observation of a parallel universe.
But what would the studies be implying exactly? That some calories contain more calories than others? Seems questions like that which was asked earlier and never answered should be asked again: If someone is burning 2000 calories a day but is taking in 1000 calories, where is the needed 1000 calories the body needs coming from? If the answer resembles anything like "500 calories worth of consumed carbohydrates can somehow cover that deficit and thereby inhibit weightloss", then it seems to me that someone has made a wrong turn somewhere.
Adherence/sustainability might be comparable though. Over time lean body mass comparisons which then effect TDEE between subjects might be something worth comparing. But CICO should still apply, shouldn't it?0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
TEF has been shown to be so negligible that it would not really move the needle in one direction or the other…so I would just toss that out…
also - if we are talking bout two people that are the same age, height, weight, gender, and activity level, then yes they should lose the same...0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »But what would the studies be implying exactly? That some calories contain more calories than others?
That the different foods had a different effect on the hormones, biochemistry etc and consequently resulted in different outcomes. To take one random example a 40% carbohydrate meal results in a large post-prandial increase in glucagon whereas a 64% carbohydrate meal with the same energy value results in a decrease in glucagon for some hours. These two situations may not have the same outcome in energy terms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578211 showed different REE values on two diets, so the same calories in would not give the same calorie deficit, and so on.
Higher protein requires more energy to digest it, so a higher proportion of that in the food means a higher energy expenditure and hence potentially more weight loss for a given energy input.
An energy balance always applies, but a human isn't a heat exchanger so the variable "energy in" is but part of the story.0 -
I lost 15 lbs one summer while living in a hotel and eating little else but snack machine snacks and fast food. And counting calories, of course.
Weight loss IS independent of diet composition and wholly dependent on caloric levels. *Well-being* is what's dependent on diet composition, and that's subjective and varies from individual to individual. Science, man. It'll getcha every time.
0 -
Don't forget Jared who lost lots of weight eating 2 Subway sandwiches a day.0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »But what would the studies be implying exactly? That some calories contain more calories than others?
That the different foods had a different effect on the hormones, biochemistry etc and consequently resulted in different outcomes.
Negligible and short-term differences, when it comes to weight loss. That's the part this post doesn't mention.0 -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????-1 -
sugar isn't the best thing you could be putting in your body, but calories are calories and they have no direct effect on fat loss. sugar could cause you to have blood sugar spikes (and consequently, crashes) or experience stronger and more frequent cravings or hunger pangs depending on how you individually handle it, but as long as your numbers are correct your weight will go down.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.0 -
JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
i don't trust anything that a fake profile account posts….just saying…
If CICO did not work then I could eat 4000 calories a day and lose weight...-2 -
JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….-2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
Exactly. A car might run better on higher-grade gas, but it will still get you from point A to point b with the regular, cheapest kind most people buy. It's doing exactly what it should, as is a body in a calorie deficit.0 -
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions