EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!
Options
Replies
-
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.
I agree.
The calorie is a calorie silliness gets old.
Food is a complex entity with many attributes. The energy output is one attribute and we now know fiber does impact the usable energy.
But extremes claiming you can eat all you want seem like marketing geared to people that just want to eat all they want
I eat low carb and calorie count.
I am low carb and eat GU energy packs and Cliff protein and carb bars before a 40 mile bike ride. Like over 100 carbs.
But that fits fine in CICO and I burn it all up.
MFP sugar wars seem unproductive.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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.
Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.
You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.
He is a quack though, that clearly makes up claims that have no scientific backing. Can you please share which studies he's authored that sugar causes obesity?
Again, you are the one calling him a quack. You need to defend that.0 -
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.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?
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 excess
Somewhat true. Sugar is 4 calories/gram, which isn't especially calorie dense. But often when we talk about sugary foods we mean low fiber foods (not fruit, which is sugary and has lots of fiber), which tends to make it more calories by volume than foods with more fiber.
The bigger issue is that sugary foods tend to be (1) drinks, which for many of us are not filling (but personally sugary drinks play zero role in why I gained weight, as I stopped drinking them long ago); and (2) sweet treats, which in many or most cases get a significant amount of their calories (if not a plurality) from fat. For example, I have a cookie recipe on MFP, and although it would get called a "sugary treat" and no doubt included in a group of high cal sugary foods, the truth is it has FAR more calories from butter than sugar. (It actually has fewer calories from sugar than the average apple.)
Thus, I think the focus on sugar is really misplaced and a way of ignoring the broader factors that lead to weight gain.
Shrug. Some people seem to need scapegoats, though.0 -
It seems the journals also have sugar wars
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/4/950.full
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/4/957.full
etc etc0 -
Yes a calorie is a calorie. Just like a foot is a foot, a meter is a meter and a gallon is a gallon. Units of measurement stop being inconsistent a long long time ago.caroldavison332 wrote: »This believe that a calorie is a calorie?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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!
And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)
It debunks nothing.
While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.
You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
Sorry, it's a highly researched link that never mentions his book the entire length of it. It does, however, mention how other people won't respond to the fact that the 'science' they're trying to sell is debunked. Considering that his weight loss information is all based only on CICO without worrying about either high or low carb, or anything else, Lustig's theory does nothing to hurt his book sales. Again, which you'd know if you'd bothered to read it.0 -
Followers of religious beliefs say the same about their own faiths though. Where's the actual peer reviewed science that can support Lustig's view on toxicity, etc.?caroldavison332 wrote: »RGV, at least you read it. He was discussing this on PBS this weekend and what he said made perfect sense.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Seriously, read actual studies from reputable sources. Your time is better spent doing that.MoiAussi93 wrote: »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!
And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)
It debunks nothing.
While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.
You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
Sorry, it's a highly researched link that never mentions his book the entire length of it. It does, however, mention how other people won't respond to the fact that the 'science' they're trying to sell is debunked. Considering that his weight loss information is all based only on CICO without worrying about either high or low carb, or anything else, Lustig's theory does nothing to hurt his book sales. Again, which you'd know if you'd bothered to read it.
0 -
But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.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?
Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?
Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?
0 -
What I'd like to see is Lustig going to Brazil (one of the highest consumers of sugar) and preach this to all the normal size people over there.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »How do you know that?
If you're asking how I know sugar is not the cause obesity, I'm only one person who is living proof--I was fat whether or not I was eating sugar, and I'm not fat anymore and I eat LOTS of sugar, probably what some might call excess.
What is excess sugar, by the way?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.
This is it right here, as to why people say sugar causes weight gain. It's not the actual sugar itself but all the calories. Thus, caloires in/calories out, we just choose where they come from.0 -
Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2007 Sep;58(6):445-60.
Sugar intake, soft drink consumption and body weight among British children: further analysis of National Diet and Nutrition Survey data with adjustment for under-reporting and physical activity.
Gibson S1, Neate D.
This study concluded that it wasn't sugar intake and soft drink consumption that made British children fat but overeating and physical inactivity. "Evidence from longitudinal studies confirms than overweight is a lifestyle issue, not merely a matter of the type of food and drink consumed." They found that high fat and high protein intake was more positively associated with being overweight than carb intake.0 -
KittensMaster 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.
I agree.
The calorie is a calorie silliness gets old.
Food is a complex entity with many attributes. The energy output is one attribute and we now know fiber does impact the usable energy.
But extremes claiming you can eat all you want seem like marketing geared to people that just want to eat all they want
I eat low carb and calorie count.
I am low carb and eat GU energy packs and Cliff protein and carb bars before a 40 mile bike ride. Like over 100 carbs.
But that fits fine in CICO and I burn it all up.
MFP sugar wars seem unproductive.
No one saying 'a calorie is a calorie' claims you can eat all you want. No one. That is not what 'a calorie is a calorie' means or implies. It means your caloric intake is responsible for you gaining/maintaining/losing, not the macro/micro makeup of your diet.
It also does not imply that you will feel and perform the same regardless of how jacked up your diet is if you stay in your caloric limits (just to head off the 'all junk food diet' arguments).0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.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?
Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?
Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?
Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.
I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.0 -
So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.MoiAussi93 wrote: »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!
And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)
It debunks nothing.
While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.
You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.0 -
tigersword wrote: »
So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.MoiAussi93 wrote: »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!
And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)
It debunks nothing.
While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.
You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.
And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions