How does sugar affect you compared to calories?

Options
MDCT
MDCT Posts: 28
in Food and Nutrition
Is eating too much sugar like having too many calories? Does the sugar turn into more calories? Are sugar calories just harder to burn off? Do they turn into fat calories?
«1

Replies

  • Pistolcoach
    Pistolcoach Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    sugar = fat.
  • dragonfly2418
    dragonfly2418 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    For me, it doesn't matter how many calories in/out. I have to watch the carb=sugar count. That's where my weight comes from. Remember all carbs turn into sugar no matter what type they are.
  • dancingdeer
    dancingdeer Posts: 378 Member
    Options
    Here is a very good article about Fructose and Sugar. Just scroll down a bit and you will see all of the information written by Dr. Mercola. His is a great website - he is very informed and a good reference. Hope this helps!

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/29/foods-that-keep-you-thin.aspx
  • Artemis_Acorn
    Artemis_Acorn Posts: 836 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie so from the perspective of caloric energy, all calories are made equal, but calories from sugar can play havoc with your endocrine system, particularly if you already have issues with blood sugar. When you eat sugar, your body excretes insulin to help you use those calories and burn them efficiently. If you eat too many calories, regardless of whether they come from carbohydrates (includes sugar) fats or proteins, your body will convert and store the extra calories as fat.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    Here is a very good article about Fructose and Sugar. Just scroll down a bit and you will see all of the information written by Dr. Mercola. His is a great website - he is very informed and a good reference. Hope this helps!

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/29/foods-that-keep-you-thin.aspx

    Taken right from the article:
    One of the most pervasive MYTHS about weight loss is that you can lose weight by just restricting your calories and increasing your exercise. If you believe this and are seeking to lose weight, let me warn you that you will be in for a load of heartache as this is a myth that is not based in reality.

    Interesting. I didn't know this Dr Mercola had a new idea of how physics work. He should submit his new theory to the scientific community so we can change our complete understanding of the laws of the universe.
  • MrCake
    MrCake Posts: 53
    Options
    In terms of physics a calorie is simply a calorie, and in terms modeling the body as an energy system it should work in the manner. Burn more calories than you digest and you will most probably end up losing weight. The problem becomes were that weight comes from. Your body will be reluctant to burn fat and will most likely use carbohydrates and proteins as they are usually more readily available as its energy source, resulting in weight loss, not fat loss. This is where restricting your sugars and managing your insulin levels would come into play.
  • dancingdeer
    dancingdeer Posts: 378 Member
    Options
    You completely took the quote out of context. Here is the rest of it...


    The key is the quality of your calories and exercise. Typically you will need to replace your grain carb and sugar calories with high quality protein and fats and replace cardio exercise with high intensity training like Peak 8. I realize that this might conflict with your previous understanding of a healthy diet, but that is clearly what the bulk of the science and anecdotal evidence supports.
  • dancingdeer
    dancingdeer Posts: 378 Member
    Options
    Here are his qualifications.

    http://www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    You completely took the quote out of context. Here is the rest of it...


    The key is the quality of your calories and exercise. Typically you will need to replace your grain carb and sugar calories with high quality protein and fats and replace cardio exercise with high intensity training like Peak 8. I realize that this might conflict with your previous understanding of a healthy diet, but that is clearly what the bulk of the science and anecdotal evidence supports.

    I didn't take it out of context. That paragraph is also ridiculous. Replace your grain carbs and sugars with high quality protein and fats? First of all, what is high quality fat? Is this the dreaded anti-saturated fat crusade again? Second, if you already get enough high quality protein and fat, you can have your grain carbs and sugar too. Oh no, I ate some ice cream today, I'm going to get fat!

    These articles are exactly what's wrong with the fitness community because it steers people away from science (physics in this case) and instead promotes some jank idea of proper nutrition that doesn't even make sense. Nothing is wrong with sugar or grain carbs. If someone is eating a balanced diet, you don't have to eliminate foods.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options

    Here are his qualifications.

    http://www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm

    -Appeal to Authority-

    It's a logical fallacy. You should look it up.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    In terms of physics a calorie is simply a calorie, and in terms modeling the body as an energy system it should work in the manner. Burn more calories than you digest and you will most probably end up losing weight. The problem becomes were that weight comes from. Your body will be reluctant to burn fat and will most likely use carbohydrates and proteins as they are usually more readily available as its energy source, resulting in weight loss, not fat loss. This is where restricting your sugars and managing your insulin levels would come into play.

    Right, a calorie is a unit of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. That's fine. You're also correct about the rules of thermodynamics and losing weight.

    Managing insulin levels comes into play by not eating too many calories. Here is a decently written article on it:

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
  • dancingdeer
    dancingdeer Posts: 378 Member
    Options
    You seem to have an anger issue. Too bad.


    Here are his qualifications.

    http://www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm

    -Appeal to Authority-

    It's a logical fallacy. You should look it up.
  • Jefster
    Jefster Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    We've been taught to "Watch Calories", but it really it should be "Watch Grams". Calories is a measure of energy, but nutrition is not a like for like result from those calories.

    Calories are not all the same, as 1 calorie of sugar will have a totally different impact on your health, than 1 calorie of fat.

    So "Watch Grams of Sugar" is more likely to be helpful, than to "Watch calories of sugar".
  • Jefster
    Jefster Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    Nutrition is not Thermodynamics.

    The makeup of the energy has an effect of the system in this case. Fat is not equal to protein is not equal to carbs. Intake in various quantities has different effects on the body, even if the calorie count was the same.

    This link explains it rather wel:

    http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/
  • MrCake
    MrCake Posts: 53
    Options
    In terms of physics a calorie is simply a calorie, and in terms modeling the body as an energy system it should work in the manner. Burn more calories than you digest and you will most probably end up losing weight. The problem becomes were that weight comes from. Your body will be reluctant to burn fat and will most likely use carbohydrates and proteins as they are usually more readily available as its energy source, resulting in weight loss, not fat loss. This is where restricting your sugars and managing your insulin levels would come into play.

    Right, a calorie is a unit of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. That's fine. You're also correct about the rules of thermodynamics and losing weight.

    Managing insulin levels comes into play by not eating too many calories. Here is a decently written article on it:

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

    Might just be me being biased because I disagree with all of the conclusions drawn in this article, but I personally think that this article is very poorly written.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    You seem to have an anger issue. Too bad.

    Great post.

    You post a logical fallacy by saying someone is correct about what they say because they're a doctor, I tell you it's not correct and apparently I have an anger issue.

    By the way, that's called "ad hominem" and that's also a logical fallacy. You should look that one up too.
  • young9
    young9 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    just thought i'd throw this out there....

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    Nutrition is not Thermodynamics.

    The makeup of the energy has an effect of the system in this case. Fat is not equal to protein is not equal to carbs. Intake in various quantities has different effects on the body, even if the calorie count was the same.

    This link explains it rather wel:

    http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

    No one is saying the makeup of energy is the same. You can't eat a diet that is completely carbs, fat or protein.

    However, if you refer back to the above posts, what the good doctor is saying is against thermodynamics and that's the problem. Restricting calories and exercising to lose weight is NOT a myth. It's the Law of Conservation of Energy.

    So, assuming you get adequate protein, adequate essential fatty acids, adequate fiber and adequate vitamins/minerals, you DO NOT, I repeat, you DO NOT need to eliminate foods such as "grain carbs" because they're big and evil. To suggest such a thing is absolutely and positively ridiculous.
  • Jefster
    Jefster Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    Young,

    The Twinkie Diet guy lost weight because he cut his carb intake actually. His diet of Twinkies (and other food) ended up being lower carb intake than his "normal" diet.

    Here is an interesting take on analyzing that diet results: http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/11/16/the-twinkie-diet/
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options


    Might just be me being biased because I disagree with all of the conclusions drawn in this article, but I personally think that this article is very poorly written.

    Eh, it's not the best article out there. The conclusion though:
    The bottom line is that insulin doesn’t deserve the bad reputation it’s been given. It’s one of the main reasons why protein helps reduce hunger. You will get insulin spikes even on a low-carb, high-protein diet. Rather than worrying about insulin, you should worry about whatever diet works the best for you in regards to satiety and sustainability. As mentioned in last week’s issue of Weightology Weekly, individual responses to particular diets are highly variable and what works for one person will not necessarily work for another. I will be writing a post in the future on the need for individualized approaches to nutrition.

    ^---That's the important stuff. When people claim insulin this and insulin that (non-diabetics) as a cause for weight gain, it's usually not the culprit in the first place.

Categories