why does sugar make us fat

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.

I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.

goldthistime wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.

If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?

Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).

PS I'm not married to the idea that the only reason sugar is associated with adiposity is satiety. If a study came out and said something like "each time you over eat sugar you strengthen neural pathways to continue overeating" or something like that, I'd accept it readily.

goldthistime wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.

If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?

People overeat those foods because they are highly palatable, and that's not great (the overeating, not the tastiness) because they tend to be high cal and low in nutrition.