How does sugar affect you compared to calories?

sugar = fat.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

just thought i'd throw this out there....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

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/

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/

So you're saying he lost weight because he cut his carbs and not because of a calorie deficit?

well, god knows i'm no expert on this and i have had my troubles with my weight over the years but the last time i lost weight, before the birth of my 4th child, i ate a balances diet and lost 30lbs in 4 months. some days i went overboard on carbs..some days not. if i felt like dessert, i'd try to eat a smaller lunch and on those day, my carbs were pretty high. i plan on following the same plan this time to get these 30lbs back off. seems to work for me..i just always stay below 1200 cals. i'm only 5' so that seems to work pretty darn good for me. i exercise for around an hour at least 5 days a week.

The opinion difference here is that you feel it's as simple as "Calories In, Calories Out", and think insulin is a bit of a scape goat in the scenario. I feel that it's more than just "Calories in, Calories Out", and that the hormonal impact of those calories goes a long way in determine the effect on the body.

Carbohydrates and excessive protein can lead to increased blood sugar levels, which leads to increased insulin production. It is that effect that determines what your body does with the fat stores it has, or thinks it needs to preserve.

So by decreasing carbohydrates and not having excessive protein, you decrease blood sugar levels, and decrease insulin secretions, which decrease storage of the "calories" you intake as fat deposits in the body. It's the repeated raising of blood sugar, which requires more insulin, which can lead to insulin resistance.

I'm not trying to vilify carbs, as not all carbs are created equal. I'm just saying not all calories have the equal effect on the body, so it's more than just Calories in, Calories out.

Ranger,

Have you seen the "Big Fat Fiasco" speech before?

It gives a good explanation of why Calorties in/Calories out is not entirely accurate. Specifically part 4.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/10/28/video-of-the-big-fat-fiasco-speech/

@Ranger

I believe you mentioned the law of thermodynamics,so I thought this might be of interest to you. Of course this isn't the correct answer to what any one is saying here. As even the author mentions that many scientists and doctors have varying opinions and this is simply how HE views it. The article is a little longer but this seemed to be the important part of it. Again, its just an article offline and clearly when is site is called "protein power" we all know what side he clearly favours. But regardless, as a dedicated science student I feel the best way to draw conclusions is to take into and understand BOTH sides of an arguement and to see where one might be getting their "low carbs will help me loss weight faster" theory. NOT carbs will make me fat (as you seem to think people are implying)
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

Just a summary of the obvious :
The second law can kind of be summed with this equation:

calories in = calories out + entropy

If we substitute numbers in the above equation it could look like this:

100 calories in = 70 calories out + entropy

If we solve this equation for entropy, we can see that entropy is 30 calories. Or, in this case, 30 calories of energy are lost.

The larger the number for entropy, the more inefficient the system is, i.e., more energy lost from the system forever.

And how it applies to weight loss:

"If we have a diet containing plenty of carbohydrate, the carbohydrate goes into the blood as sugar. There are very few chemical reactions along the way, and there is a loss of energy to the universe with each of these reactions. But, since there aren’t many conversions, there isn’t a lot of energy loss.

If we have no carbohydrates (or few) in the diet, however, it’s a different story. In order to maintain the necessary sugar level in the blood the body is forced to make sugar out of protein, which isn’t a simple operation. Look in any basic biochemistry textbook and you can see all the reactions required to convert protein to sugar, and each one of these reactions consumes energy just to take place but loses energy to the universe in the process as well. It’s much less efficient for the body to convert protein to sugar than it is to simply take the sugar as it comes in already formed.

The second law of thermodynamics virtually mandates that there be a larger loss of energy when one has to convert protein to sugar instead of merely using the sugar as it comes in. Since there are 4 kcal of energy in a gram of sugar and 4 kcal of energy in a gram of protein, it should be apparent that less of the 4 kcal in a gram of sugar will be dissipated than will be the 4 kcal in a gram of protein if this gram of protein has to first be converted to sugar.

And, consequently, one would think that a diet low in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat (both of which have to be converted to sugar) would bring about a greater weight loss than a diet of the same number of calories but with higher levels of carbohydrate. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics predicts this very phenomenon. But despite this rather obvious notion that complies perfectly with the second law, many ignorant people continue to cling to the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ despite that idea flying in the face of the second law. I suppose these people discount the second law. If so, then they should spend their time putting together a perpetual motion machine, which, if they could, would garner them a lot more fame than their inane posturing on the inevitability of the second law might do.

A classic example of how the second law works is in the difference between regular and premium gasoline. Both regular and premium have the same exact number of calories per gallon, but premium burns more efficiently. In other words, the calories contained in the premium gas get ‘wasted’ at a lower percentage in propelling the car along the road than do the calories in the regular. A high-performance automobile designed to squeeze the most out of a gallon of gas will get better mileage on premium than on regular gasoline, yet the calories in are exactly the same.

In the human body this inefficiency can be measured as an increase in metabolic rate and an increase in body heat being produced under laboratory conditions. One would assume that since the second law is inviolable and always in operation that people eating a diet low in carbohydrates and high in protein would produce more heat than those consuming the same number of calories but composed of a much higher percentage of carbohydrates. And that is exactly what is found."


As I think i mentioned above, you also seem to believe that people on carb diets use a post-hoc way of thinking ( saw of your love of logical fallacies). People on low carb diets do not think "I used to eat a lot of carbs, and now i'm fat, so carbs made me fat." On the contrary you cannot say "I ate lots of carbs and lost weight therefore, carbs help you lose weight" Simply because A preceded B does not mean A caused B.

And now that you're done reading all that and think I'm some awful person that doesn't eat carbs. I don't personally believe in carbohydrate restriction to lose weight. I'm an all in moderation type of person, I just like to consider both sides before I pick one that works for myself.