why does sugar make us fat

J72FIT wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

J72FIT wrote: »

mysteps2beauty wrote: »

Well, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents here seeing as I've not read all the posts.....but from what i'm reading and researching, the body burns sugar first before fat. So if you are ingesting things high in sugar, the body sends out insulin to burn the new glucose that you just ate (ever wonder why you feel sluggish in the afternoon after a sizeable meal especially if it included refined carbs.)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe insulin burns glucose. If you do not understand the fundamentals how can we follow the rest...

mysteps2beauty wrote: »

Glucose is the preferred source of energy so it totally ignores the fat until the excess glucose stores are used up. If you eat more sugar than what your body needs it converts it to fat, esp around the abdomen. I'm sure the posters here will either agree or not, but I'm gonna do my own research on this here body.

How much sugar does the body need...?

mysteps2beauty wrote: »

So, I personally reduced my sugar intake, not perfectly but decidely a good bit. Sodium too. Now, my cravings have reduced greatly, and if I do eat something with too much sugar...I gag, and can't eat another bite. Good enough result for me right there.

Ok...

mysteps2beauty wrote: »

I've also been reading up on Intermittent Fasting (IF), just today as a matter of fact. I'm going to give it a chance for the remainder of this month. I've booked mark this post so I'll respond here or pm you if I find it made a difference.

IF is great for those who can tolerate it...

mysteps2beauty wrote: »

Now, I'm going to take my time and read all of the wonderful posts here to see if I can glean additional information for my research...carry on.

My guess is your only going to take heed the posts that agree with you...

Essentially your pancreas releases insulin, which then activates your cells to open to allow glucose to enter, so it can then be converted into energy.

Right, it transports for either usage or storage correct? But it does not burn it...

Correct. Think of it like this: it's the key to the door.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

...although I do think satiety is an important issue, I don't think that's why people overeat sweet treats (and I also think the reason sweet treats aren't satiating for most of us has as much to do with the fat as the sugar, as well as the refined flour in many cases). My pet theory for why people often overeat sweet treats is that they are hedonic eating -- not eating due to hunger at all. Therefore, they add calories ON TOP OF the calories that they would otherwise eat anyway, at meals. This is why cutting back if you eat a lot of sweets is often a good way to cut calories (but when I did this I cut fat as much as sugar, and I cut fat in other places too, so I wouldn't agree at all that fat is more filling than carbs). It's also why if you learn to eat sweets in moderation it's not hard to do -- that's again because it's not about satiety, as you should be eating well enough at meals to be satiated, IMO, if one has a sensible diet.

If one were hungry, there are tons of foods to choose, including foods that people know will fill them up. If someone chooses a cookie and then eats 10, that's not because they were eating for hunger. They are choosing the cookie because they like cookies and eating so many for various other reasons (lack of structure, bad habits, boredom, pleasure/hedonism, on and on). NOT because the hunger is making them -- that just makes no sense to me.

I agree that sweet treats are eaten more for enjoyment and perhaps for their instant energy properties, than to satisfy hunger. But imo, the fact that sugar is less satiating over time is still meaningful.

If my hunger/appetite tends to match my caloric requirements fairly accurately, but on this particular day I eat a large amount of sugar at 3pm to keep me from falling asleep at my desk, will my hunger at dinner time be accurately adjusted? Or will the fact that sugar has less long term satiating abilities mean that I will eat more at dinner time than I should?

Watch the documentary "The Sugar Film". Probably the best documentary I've ever watched, very eye-opening!

serapel wrote: »

I love sugar!!! It's so hard when you have kids. Always something in the house.

Do you actually love plain sugar, or specific foods that have sugar and other ingredients?

I like some foods that contain sugar (ice cream, for example, or chocolate-covered almonds), and others I find uninteresting (most Halloween-type candy, soda, coffee with sugar in it (love coffee, the sugar ruins it for me).

What I find is that I mostly enjoy items that have both sugar and fat (although obviously not all of them). The exception to this is fruit, which I generally love (and, I guess, 0% Fage). So I wouldn't say that I love sugar specifically any more than any other ingredient that is in a number of foods I enjoy.

Currently obsessed with this completely non sweet chocolate drink (you make it like coffee), so even my love for chocolate isn't simply sugar based or dependent on sugar at all.

goldthistime wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

...although I do think satiety is an important issue, I don't think that's why people overeat sweet treats (and I also think the reason sweet treats aren't satiating for most of us has as much to do with the fat as the sugar, as well as the refined flour in many cases). My pet theory for why people often overeat sweet treats is that they are hedonic eating -- not eating due to hunger at all. Therefore, they add calories ON TOP OF the calories that they would otherwise eat anyway, at meals. This is why cutting back if you eat a lot of sweets is often a good way to cut calories (but when I did this I cut fat as much as sugar, and I cut fat in other places too, so I wouldn't agree at all that fat is more filling than carbs). It's also why if you learn to eat sweets in moderation it's not hard to do -- that's again because it's not about satiety, as you should be eating well enough at meals to be satiated, IMO, if one has a sensible diet.

If one were hungry, there are tons of foods to choose, including foods that people know will fill them up. If someone chooses a cookie and then eats 10, that's not because they were eating for hunger. They are choosing the cookie because they like cookies and eating so many for various other reasons (lack of structure, bad habits, boredom, pleasure/hedonism, on and on). NOT because the hunger is making them -- that just makes no sense to me.

I agree that sweet treats are eaten more for enjoyment and perhaps for their instant energy properties, than to satisfy hunger. But imo, the fact that sugar is less satiating over time is still meaningful.

If my hunger/appetite tends to match my caloric requirements fairly accurately, but on this particular day I eat a large amount of sugar at 3pm to keep me from falling asleep at my desk, will my hunger at dinner time be accurately adjusted? Or will the fact that sugar has less long term satiating abilities mean that I will eat more at dinner time than I should?

I suspect that most people (probably the percentage who are overweight, as there's an argument that we seem to have hit around the cap where the numbers aren't going up more) don't have appetites that are particularly sensitive to calorie requirements, but who knows. (I find it interesting in observing cats that some seem to be and some are not at all. I've had cats who can free feed and my thin cat now clearly goes through hungry periods and non hungry periods. I have another cat who struggles with his weight -- LOL, actually of course he couldn't care less, but we do -- and he will always eat if food is offered, although he clearly does have taste preferences.)

I tend to agree that eating snacky foods outside of meal times increases overall calories if you don't log, but I think this is more because what you eat for dinner tends to be more driven by what you (general you -- you yourself might be different) and habit, not what you eat earlier in the day unless you are eating right before dinner. The snacky stuff doesn't get perceived as a meal, so people don't think they should eat less. (I don't really think how much people eat is as driven by appetite other than maybe at the beginning of the meal as enjoyment and how much is available and seems right to them.)

Anyway, I suspect this is true with basically any snacky stuff, it just so happens that common snacky stuff is a combination of refined carbs and fat.

If you had a meal at 3, would you eat less at dinner at 8? I suspect yes, but that's because eating a meal then is uncommon so you would be more likely to think you already had dinner.

A good example is dessert. A lot of people think "I'm full, can't eat another bite" but then of course have room for dessert, because it's a different food! I suppose you could argue that this is because it's sugary, so not filling, but I go to a lot of restaurants where eating cheese after dinner is common and even do that myself at home, and see the same thing, even though that's basically just fat.

Anyway, I don't think we can really separate out these things, but I tend to be skeptical of the physical hunger arguments just given how many overall calories are consumed on average in the US and think an enormous part of it is just psychological, habit, what seems appropriate to us, enjoyment of eating and desire provoked by food that is present and appealing, stuff like that.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

serapel wrote: »

I love sugar!!! It's so hard when you have kids. Always something in the house.

Do you actually love plain sugar, or specific foods that have sugar and other ingredients?

I like some foods that contain sugar (ice cream, for example, or chocolate-covered almonds), and others I find uninteresting (most Halloween-type candy, soda, coffee with sugar in it (love coffee, the sugar ruins it for me).

What I find is that I mostly enjoy items that have both sugar and fat (although obviously not all of them). The exception to this is fruit, which I generally love (and, I guess, 0% Fage). So I wouldn't say that I love sugar specifically any more than any other ingredient that is in a number of foods I enjoy.

Currently obsessed with this completely non sweet chocolate drink (you make it like coffee), so even my love for chocolate isn't simply sugar based or dependent on sugar at all.

Please please share your wisdom! This sounds like an interesting thing to try.

It was recommended to me in a conversation on MFP, but I can't remember the brand name now--will have to check when I get home and report back.

Oh, so it's a brand. I thought it was something made with cocoa. Oh well, it's unlikely I will find it around here. Actually, I would still like to know. My sister is going to the US next month so I might ask her to bring me some back.

That sounds delicious.

ETA- They have free samples! Yay!

stevencloser wrote: »

Sued0nim wrote: »

You know what was eye opening. I just spent a week in the states ...I'm European...my taste buds took 2 days to adapt to how ridiculously overly sweet every single thing tasted ...from bread to cookies ...and OMG I simply couldn't stand American coffees unless straight up and black ...but also how ridiculously delicious your fruit and vegetables were.

And yet obesity levels ..not much different are they



Of course it took me 2 days for my taste buds to adapt back to our equivalent foods

I also think this chart is rather relevant to this thread





And finally, just cos I love this guy (James Fell ladies and gents...check out bodyforwife.com)

As much as I agree with you, I think the drop in sugar consumption is because that isn't counting HFCS.

Are you sure they don't? It's added sugar so it might include syrups such as HFCS.




I thought I'd throw this in for fun:

Why you try to switch conversation to fat, Wheelhouse?

You know HFCS isn't a fat, right? Although corn oil is just as big an offender in my opinion. All of those vegetable oils are.

Sugar!!!

This is a sugar thread!

*edit* (oh, fine, add in the HFCS chart and make me look bad again.)

goldthistime wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

...although I do think satiety is an important issue, I don't think that's why people overeat sweet treats (and I also think the reason sweet treats aren't satiating for most of us has as much to do with the fat as the sugar, as well as the refined flour in many cases). My pet theory for why people often overeat sweet treats is that they are hedonic eating -- not eating due to hunger at all. Therefore, they add calories ON TOP OF the calories that they would otherwise eat anyway, at meals. This is why cutting back if you eat a lot of sweets is often a good way to cut calories (but when I did this I cut fat as much as sugar, and I cut fat in other places too, so I wouldn't agree at all that fat is more filling than carbs). It's also why if you learn to eat sweets in moderation it's not hard to do -- that's again because it's not about satiety, as you should be eating well enough at meals to be satiated, IMO, if one has a sensible diet.

If one were hungry, there are tons of foods to choose, including foods that people know will fill them up. If someone chooses a cookie and then eats 10, that's not because they were eating for hunger. They are choosing the cookie because they like cookies and eating so many for various other reasons (lack of structure, bad habits, boredom, pleasure/hedonism, on and on). NOT because the hunger is making them -- that just makes no sense to me.

I agree that sweet treats are eaten more for enjoyment and perhaps for their instant energy properties, than to satisfy hunger. But imo, the fact that sugar is less satiating over time is still meaningful.

If my hunger/appetite tends to match my caloric requirements fairly accurately, but on this particular day I eat a large amount of sugar at 3pm to keep me from falling asleep at my desk, will my hunger at dinner time be accurately adjusted? Or will the fact that sugar has less long term satiating abilities mean that I will eat more at dinner time than I should?

I suspect that most people (probably the percentage who are overweight, as there's an argument that we seem to have hit around the cap where the numbers aren't going up more) don't have appetites that are particularly sensitive to calorie requirements, but who knows. (I find it interesting in observing cats that some seem to be and some are not at all. I've had cats who can free feed and my thin cat now clearly goes through hungry periods and non hungry periods. I have another cat who struggles with his weight -- LOL, actually of course he couldn't care less, but we do -- and he will always eat if food is offered, although he clearly does have taste preferences.)

I tend to agree that eating snacky foods outside of meal times increases overall calories if you don't log, but I think this is more because what you eat for dinner tends to be more driven by what you (general you -- you yourself might be different) and habit, not what you eat earlier in the day unless you are eating right before dinner. The snacky stuff doesn't get perceived as a meal, so people don't think they should eat less. (I don't really think how much people eat is as driven by appetite other than maybe at the beginning of the meal as enjoyment and how much is available and seems right to them.)

Anyway, I suspect this is true with basically any snacky stuff, it just so happens that common snacky stuff is a combination of refined carbs and fat.

If you had a meal at 3, would you eat less at dinner at 8? I suspect yes, but that's because eating a meal then is uncommon so you would be more likely to think you already had dinner.

A good example is dessert. A lot of people think "I'm full, can't eat another bite" but then of course have room for dessert, because it's a different food! I suppose you could argue that this is because it's sugary, so not filling, but I go to a lot of restaurants where eating cheese after dinner is common and even do that myself at home, and see the same thing, even though that's basically just fat.

Anyway, I don't think we can really separate out these things, but I tend to be skeptical of the physical hunger arguments just given how many overall calories are consumed on average in the US and think an enormous part of it is just psychological, habit, what seems appropriate to us, enjoyment of eating and desire provoked by food that is present and appealing, stuff like that.

Let me back track a little first. My response about sugar and satiety and lack of nutrients is the premise of my argument that excess sugar consumption can be a major contributor to weight gain. If that premise is thrown out (as it initially seemed to be by people responding), then I can't really continue in the discussion. Or if I wanted to, I'd have to go find research supporting that premise. In my mind, that premise is recognized universally and isn't something I should have to drag out literature to support. Aaron's response heartened me because he said, quite succinctly, what I had expected everyone knew. That sugar gives the least amount of lasting fullness of any kind of food. I probably should have added (as Aaron did) that sugar's ability to give instant energy has importance to the discussion too.

Well, I think everything with satiety is individual (probably because it is mental, at least in part, and also people differ), so I don't think it's possible to prove that sugar is the least satiating food inherently and for all. It depends, and there seem to be people in this discussion who don't find that. Is it on average (like protein is most satiating on average)? I'd predict that would be so, and will also say that for me sugar isn't satiating at all (i.e., would I be less likely to get hungry if I added a bunch of sugar to my coffee instead of drinking it black? no). I also think that the main way people in the US consume lots of sugar on its own (soda) isn't satiating for most people (some do seem to adjust overall calories when consuming more soda, so this goes back to people are different).

My pet peeve is focusing on carbs (this may be something that people have noticed, I dunno) ;-), and so I have to point out that adding fat to the sugar doesn't actually make a food more satiating to me. If I ate cookies between lunch and dinner, would I naturally eat less dinner (if not logging)? No, probably not. Would I be more likely to than if I ate a bunch of hard candy (which I wouldn't do, since I can't imagine consuming lots of calories of straight sugar, it's just not appealing to me)? I don't think so, although I'm kind of curious (not enough to do an experiment and knowing it was an experiment would ruin the results anyway). Would a non sugary junk food (chips) be more likely to be perceived as satiating to me? Again, don't think so, but refined carbs plus fat is all the same anyway, sugar or no.

I don't personally disagree with your statement about satiety, then -- it rings mostly true to me -- but I don't think it's universally true (and for me fat does zero for my hunger, so is no better than sugar -- give me a high carb smoothie or a bulletproof coffee, and I'd bet you a decent amount of money that I'd be hungry sooner after the coffee).

Your cat example is delightful, because it involves cats , and because it shows that obesity can occur in the absence of sugar. At least I think it does. I guess it's possible that someone could show that there are carbs introduced in cat food that break down to sugars. Either way, it demonstrates that there is individual response to free feeding.

This is true -- I actually once thought that getting the carbs out of my cat's diet was the way to prevent overeating (because cats aren't carb eaters and yet lots of commercial cat foods are surprisingly high carb) and my fat cat still will overeat.

I talked about satiety from just the high sugar component of a big 3pm sugary treat, and you broadened the topic to be the lack of satiating properties in most snacky foods. I read that to mean that sugar is hardly alone in it's poor satiation, and that other factors (psychological and habit) besides the food matter.

I agree with you (and others here) that appetite/satiety is complicated and there can be lots of factors over and above the type of food we eat that enter into the picture. But I don't think that means we can't separate out sugar's role. It's the kind of thing that scientists try to do all the time.

I'm not saying it's impossible in a study (although it's really challenging and I've yet to see it done adequately), but that in discussing this it's pretty much impossible, so the evidence allows for all of our pet theories. For me, environment/structure is far more important than the individual properties of the foods as to whether I overeat or not, so I tend to think that's more relevant. Others may perceive it differently. In the US, all exist (likely non satiating foods, environments that are challenging, a cultural lack of structure), so hard to separate out.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

It was a mail-order (er, internet order) thing from a place in Washington state (don't know if they deliver outside the US, though). I expect you could do it yourself with cocoa beans, if you have a source. This is not the same one, but there seem to be a bunch that are similar: http://choffy.com/

Free sample ordered! This stuff sounds amazing.

Same here! Thanks for that, @lemurcat12

I can't wait to try it.

Hornsby wrote: »

How are you getting samples? In FAQ it says they don't do it... I want free stuff.

There is a Sample tab at the top of the page.

ETA- Go to shop first... then the sample tab is at the top of the page.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

It was a mail-order (er, internet order) thing from a place in Washington state (don't know if they deliver outside the US, though). I expect you could do it yourself with cocoa beans, if you have a source. This is not the same one, but there seem to be a bunch that are similar: http://choffy.com/

Free sample ordered! This stuff sounds amazing.

Same here! Thanks for that, @lemurcat12

I can't wait to try it.

I did also, so excited!

Hornsby wrote: »

How are you getting samples? In FAQ it says they don't do it... I want free stuff.

Also, on the home page with the scrolling banner, it's the second page of the banner, you can just click it.

cmriverside wrote: »

Why you try to switch conversation to fat, Wheelhouse?

You know HFCS isn't a fat, right? Although corn oil is just as big an offender in my opinion. All of those vegetable oils are.

Sugar!!!

This is a sugar thread!

*edit* (oh, fine, add in the HFCS chart and make me look bad again.)

Quick question, do you now where most of the oil comes from? One reason, I put it there to see if people are aware of what is really going on and not just looking at number and lines on a graph. Hint: one of the major reason for obesity hides behind that graph.