Eek! Sugar!?

Options
245

Replies

  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    Options
    Both groups were eating pretty much the same amount of carbs (i.e. sugar). Although it looks like the low-sucrose group was eating about 300 more calories. Yet weight loss was about the same.


    The subjects were in a pretty poor state of health. (BMI of 35). So of course there will be an improvement. They're going from poor health to sub-par health. If they stayed on this diet - either group - they would never get to optimal health. Eventually things would come to a grinding halt and then start heading back downhill.
  • icemaiden17_uk
    icemaiden17_uk Posts: 463 Member
    Options
    bumping for later
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Both groups were eating pretty much the same amount of carbs (i.e. sugar). Although it looks like the low-sucrose group was eating about 300 more calories. Yet weight loss was about the same.


    The subjects were in a pretty poor state of health. (BMI of 35). So of course there will be an improvement. They're going from poor health to sub-par health. If they stayed on this diet - either group - they would never get to optimal health. Eventually things would come to a grinding halt and then start heading back downhill.

    Kj =/= Kcals (the diets differed by about 70kcal)

    And this was not about if eating a diet consisting of 40% sucrose was healthy or not long term, but to show that all the demonizing and fear of sugar and how it has magical properties to stop weight loss in it's tracks is unfounded
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    Options
    Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.

    Obesity is the accumulation of excess body fat, and guess what you can get obese without a high carb diet

    Really? Because the only thing that affects my weight is carbs. I can't gain on protein/fat. I've tried. I can eat more than I burn of protein/fat and still not gain.

    As long as insulin levels are elevated you aren't burning fat - you are storing it. And the Standard American Diet will ensure that your insulin levels stay elevated (eat something high-carb as soon as you wake up and eat something high-carb every few hours) Obesity is your body's inability to burn fat.

    And if you spend some time on Pubmed you will find information regarding sugar addiction.
  • DL121004
    DL121004 Posts: 214 Member
    Options
    And this was not about if eating a diet consisting of 40% sucrose was healthy or not long term, but to show that all the demonizing and fear of sugar and how it has magical properties to stop weight loss in it's tracks is unfounded

    I think this is where a lot of the communication breaks down.

    I think many people look at weight loss as not just pure weight loss, but a process to lose weight in a long-term healthy manner that has a high rate of long-term success (sustainability).
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.

    Obesity is the accumulation of excess body fat, and guess what you can get obese without a high carb diet

    Really? Because the only thing that affects my weight is carbs. I can't gain on protein/fat. I've tried. I can eat more than I burn of protein/fat and still not gain.

    As long as insulin levels are elevated you aren't burning fat - you are storing it. And the Standard American Diet will ensure that your insulin levels stay elevated (eat something high-carb as soon as you wake up and eat something high-carb every few hours) Obesity is your body's inability to burn fat.

    And if you spend some time on Pubmed you will find information regarding sugar addiction.

    Are you familiar with this post that is supported by peer reviewed research?
    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

    Additionally, short term insulin fluctuations are irrelevant for weight loss assuming a normally functioning metabolism (non diabetic). Fat oxidation exceeds fat storage when energy intake is below expenditure regardless of short term insulin fluctuation.

    Also, I am interested in any research you have to support your position and I'm not saying this to get into a pissing match. I would really like to see what you have on this.
  • peacemongernc
    peacemongernc Posts: 253 Member
    Options

    Even the major medical establishments are starting to use "addiction" when is comes to sugar. Sugar travels the same brain pathways as opiate drugs (like heroin). Grains contain exorphins which are morphine-like compounds. Also addictive.

    I've been wondering about this recently, I heard something like this mentioned on a TV news show while I was doing something else and it has been wandering through my brain ever since.

    The assumption here is that sugar is addictive because it travels similar brain pathways as things we know are addictive. Could it be that the reason that opiates are so addictive is because they use similar pathways as a common nutrient, but don't behave in the body the way the nutrient (sugar) does? When we eat sugar, we have built in responses that make us aware that we have eaten something... so it makes sense that if something else is triggering the same brain pathways WITHOUT the physiological response that we get when we eat the sugar, that it would cause problems like addiction.

    I KNOW NOTHING about this... my background is in philosophy, NOT nutrition, biology, or anything else that would be useful in this discussion. But it is just one of those things that wafted through my brain when I heard it.

    Maybe the sugar isn't addictive just because it travels pathways opiates do... maybe opiates are addictive because they are piggybacking on pathways where they don't belong.

    Thoughts?

    Also, I think sucrose will eventually be found to be worse than other sugars, so I'm not arguing in favor of sugar... just wondering about the opiate/sugar comparison.

    Shannon
  • peacemongernc
    peacemongernc Posts: 253 Member
    Options
    Sugar is my "poison" of choice and although I have cut back on it as I have pretty much everything to maintain a healthy weight as I get older, I will NEVER give it up completely. Not even for lent:smile: I saw a Dr. being interviewed who said sugar in moderation is like poison in moderation...so be it!

    I would like to ask that Dr. a few things. :) The symptoms of having ingested many poisons are the same as the symptoms of having had a few alcoholic drinks. There is a reason for that. So, yeah, some poisons, in moderation, are fine. The problem with some poisons is that there are no benefits to ingesting them, and that the amount of them it takes to have negative health consequences is really low.

    But yeah, even poison, in moderation, can have its place in a full and happy life. :) Chicken livers and beets, however, have no place in a full and happy life. LOL!
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    The likelihood of you eating in a surplus and not gaining is as likely as you owning a pet unicorn.

    And if obesity is your body's inability to burn fat, how did you get fat in the first place? From just eating carbs? How do you explain societies that have extremely high carb intake yet aren't obese?
  • badgerbadger1
    badgerbadger1 Posts: 954 Member
    Options
    I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

    If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.
  • jnhu72
    jnhu72 Posts: 558 Member
    Options
    [/quote]

    The point being people have singled out sugar as some mystical and evil thing that can single handily prevent weight loss when dieting, when it really is about the calories
    [/quote]

    ^^
    This!
  • andrejjorje
    andrejjorje Posts: 497 Member
    Options
    I agree on this one. Sugar is just a carb maybe worse than other carbs but nevertheless a carb. What is bad about it (same for sweeteners) is the addiction side of it.
    In the other hand I agree with Acg67 that obesity is a calorie problem and not per say a carb problem but yes in 99% of the cases that bigger no. of calories is coming from high carbs. It's a fact.
    A 6 week study tells me nothing. The fructose alone will destroy the liver over decades (NAFLD).

    I'll be reading this study thoroughly. I've already read quite a bit in the Intro and I'm already seeing some interesting info.

    Sugar is an addictive poison. But it poisons your body over long-term - not within 6 weeks. And I'll have to check into the health of the subjects at the start of the study.

    Even the major medical establishments are starting to use "addiction" when is comes to sugar. Sugar travels the same brain pathways as opiate drugs (like heroin). Grains contain exorphins which are morphine-like compounds. Also addictive.


    Obesity is the body trying to stave off diabetes from the high-carb (i.e. high-sugar) diet that is considered healthy. Some of us have pancreas that will grow new beta cells and pump out more insulin to keep the blood sugar levels under control. Some of us have pancreas that will just burn out. One in every five diabetics is thin (I'm thin IGT). There are probably many more out there but most doctors assume the obesity caused the diabetes so they not going to check the bs of a thin person.
  • shydaisi
    shydaisi Posts: 833 Member
    Options
    I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

    If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.

    :laugh:

    Interesting conversation as a whole. I was talking this morning about sugar and how I believe (I would love to find a study that substantiates this) the the body metabolizes fructose differently than other glucose/sucrose compounds. I have a hard time believing that a non-manmade sugar (fructose) would be as bad for the human body as a manmade chemical. I attempt to watch my sucrose intake (not always successfully) because I think a diet saturated with these types of sugars is not healthy, but I refuse to limit my fruit consumption as long as it is part of a balanced diet.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

    If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.

    Wow, way to be a follower. I prefer to question EVERYTHING and lead my own path.
  • andrejjorje
    andrejjorje Posts: 497 Member
    Options
    Do a search on PGC-1 gene and you will find out. :smile:
    But again everything is related to high-fructose diet. High means a lot. 1-2 fruits/day doesn't mean HIGH.
    I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

    If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.

    :laugh:

    Interesting conversation as a whole. I was talking this morning about sugar and how I believe (I would love to find a study that substantiates this) the the body metabolizes fructose differently than other glucose/sucrose compounds. I have a hard time believing that a non-manmade sugar (fructose) would be as bad for the human body as a manmade chemical. I attempt to watch my sucrose intake (not always successfully) because I think a diet saturated with these types of sugars is not healthy, but I refuse to limit my fruit consumption as long as it is part of a balanced diet.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

    If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.

    :laugh:

    Interesting conversation as a whole. I was talking this morning about sugar and how I believe (I would love to find a study that substantiates this) the the body metabolizes fructose differently than other glucose/sucrose compounds. I have a hard time believing that a non-manmade sugar (fructose) would be as bad for the human body as a manmade chemical. I attempt to watch my sucrose intake (not always successfully) because I think a diet saturated with these types of sugars is not healthy, but I refuse to limit my fruit consumption as long as it is part of a balanced diet.

    Fructose is a natural sugar, but it has been found to be quite lipogenic compared to other sugars
  • katiew00t
    katiew00t Posts: 164
    Options
    I have a pet unicorn. It farts glitter.

    If you're arguing against Acg67 and Sidesteal, know that you are on the side of WRONG.




    excellent.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    I prefer to question EVERYTHING and lead my own path.

    As you should, at least to a large extent.
  • DL121004
    DL121004 Posts: 214 Member
    Options
    Fructose is a natural sugar, but it has been found to be quite lipogenic compared to other sugars

    Correct.

    Plus, if I am correct, fructose, via the Maillard reaction, can lead to a higher level of advanced glycation endproducts.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Here's a good writeup from Lyle McDonald on the subject of insulin and fat loss

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html

Categories