EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!
Options
Replies
-
-
-
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.0 -
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.
Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.
Here is one.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
Is that like Coke sponsoring scientists to promote the message that people needn't drink less soda, but just exercise more?
0 -
excessive amounts of sugar contribute to the problem because sugar is calorie dense and thus contribute to over consuming energy. It is very easy to over eat "junk" foods.
I used to drink quite a bit of soda and it definitely contributed to my being overweight...because it was a *kitten* ton of calories on top of everything else I was eating...cutting back helped me lose weight because it reduced my over all energy consumption...I eat sugar still, though in less quantity...which helps regulate my energy consumption...but it's still sugar and I'm about 12% BF.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?0 -
He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »excessive amounts of sugar contribute to the problem because sugar is calorie dense and thus contribute to over consuming energy. It is very easy to over eat "junk" foods.
I used to drink quite a bit of soda and it definitely contributed to my being overweight...because it was a *kitten* ton of calories on top of everything else I was eating...cutting back helped me lose weight because it reduced my over all energy consumption...I eat sugar still, though in less quantity...which helps regulate my energy consumption...but it's still sugar and I'm about 12% BF.
I agree here
sugar dense foods are often high calorie in nature and therefore it's easy overeat and go over into excess0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?
He's working for the sugar industry. That's what the Corn Refiner's Association is....they make sweeteners. Who is paying his bills...the sugar industry.0 -
*sniff*, I ate 50g above my recommended sugar nearly every day for the last 11 months, and now someone is telling me I am going to regain all the weight I lost and become obese?0
-
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
That's not peer reviewed science either, it's the blog of an asshat that I won't be visiting to add to his statistics.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.
Upper limit, yes, of course. Not sure what you mean by "the problem with carbs now".0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
"Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.
Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/
ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".
LOL!
No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.
As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.
0 -
"Carbs make us obese!!" can't be because of the difference in what calories it has in a lab vs. what our body can use.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »He seems to be playing fast and lose with terminology:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
The study he cited says:RESULTS:
The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.
Lustig is trying to claim the lack of calorie absorption is due to fiber, therefore a calorie is not a calorie. The study he cites states that the current method of determining the energy content of foods (Atwater method) may be flawed when measuring certain types of foods. So when he says "you eat 160 calories of almonds," he means that "you eat 160 calories (determined to be 160 by Atwater)," not that it's a true 160 calories, and then is trying to claim that the 130 is the result of a calorie not being a calorie; the study says the 130 comes from the Atwater method calculations being off.
I think that's a good point about fiber though. I read on these forums all the time that a calorie is a calorie and a carb is a carb. But it's not true when the subject is weight control. It's important to know the difference between how many calories a food contains from tests in a lab vs. how many your body is likely ingest and use.
How many calories a food contains in a lab is thankfully an upper limit, so if anything you'd get less calories than it says, so that really can't be the problem with carbs now.
Upper limit, yes, of course. Not sure what you mean by "the problem with carbs now".
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.
Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
"MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY"
wrote the review. Is it deficient ?
He's working for the sugar industry. That's what the Corn Refiner's Association is....they make sweeteners. Who is paying his bills...the sugar industry.
In what way is the piece deficient ? The conflict of interest is apparent, but that doesn't mean he made the whole thing up. His day job appears to be at a University, would he want to make stuff up for a few bucks and trash his reputation ?
Everyone has an axe to grind one way or the other, Lustig and the Corn Refiners Association are both financially conflicted. The truth should be visible in the analysis.
Personally I find Lustig weak on evidence for his position but there's a thread of logic in the effect of fructose being somewhat different to other carbohydrates.0 -
Simply put: if sugar was the reason for obesity, nearly everyone would be obese.
Yes, there are weird instances where the actual caloric number given may be incorrect (like with some cooled and recooked starches) but it simply is NOT the reason people become fat. It is in nearly every single case: Calories in, calories out. That's science.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions