Eek! Sugar!?

Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is a malnourishment problem. Most (not all) obese people are malnourished and don't eat as many calories as one thinks they do.............

Do you have any source information on this that doesn't come from Gary Taubes?

Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is a malnourishment problem. Most (not all) obese people are malnourished and don't eat as many calories as one thinks they do.............

I love how you make things up.

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?

You know this one Acg, you must do. The theory du jour is that sustained high levels of fructose damage the metabolism. Non-obese societies with high carb intake generally get their carbs from starch. Transplant any one of them into the West with access to candy and soda, they get obese.

I make no claim that this is correct, but this is a popular theory doing the rounds.

Do they get obese because of the candy and soda or do they get obese from consuming a surplus of calories? Or let's rephrase that, if they had the exact same maconutrient composition and calorie intake, but subbed out let's say sweet potatoes for pixi sticks, they would get fat?

i didn't read the entire thread. and i didn't really read the article that was originally posted. i'm in the school of thought that moderation is key to things like sugar ( and i'm talking like white, processed sugar, not naturally OCCURING sugar).

most of the people that i know that have issues with sugar are those that are very sensitive to the changes in behavior it can create. again, talking white processed sugar, not naturally occurring. i also know of people that are addicted to processed foods. and those are often higher in white sugar. i have friends that claim to be vegetarians, because they don't eat meats, but their diet is mainly white carbs, NOT veggies.

so, for me and my family we do "everything in moderation." our focus is to keep processed sugars low and naturally occurring higher. and balance out with healthy fats and proteins. once in awhile the kids end up on a sugar high, and it's just not pleasant. that's the MAIN reason for my not letting our house be a sugar free for all state......... none of my kids are over weight. infact they are ALL ( i have 5 of them) average or under average. my 10.5 yr old is the size of a 9 yr old. my 3 yr old son, is the size of a 2 yr old. so........

I can eat more than I burn of protein/fat and still not gain.

BRB, getting ripped on 7,500 cals/day of steak and peanut butter

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?

You know this one Acg, you must do. The theory du jour is that sustained high levels of fructose damage the metabolism. Non-obese societies with high carb intake generally get their carbs from starch. Transplant any one of them into the West with access to candy and soda, they get obese.

I make no claim that this is correct, but this is a popular theory doing the rounds.

Do they get obese because of the candy and soda or do they get obese from consuming a surplus of calories? Or let's rephrase that, if they had the exact same maconutrient composition and calorie intake, but subbed out let's say sweet potatoes for pixi sticks, they would get fat?

Do they consume a surplus of calories because the candy and soda drive them to consume more candy and soda?

It is an interesting discussion, but in the end there is will power to prevent you from over consuming things. And I do think you are right there are some people that simply can't do moderation with certain foods, and again you'd come up with the same discussion of will power vs your body "forcing" you to consume more.

There's a great thread on here about cravings for sweet things. My pet theory (absolutely no science behind this at all) is that you're either a sugar-junkie type, or you're not. Some people can eat anything in moderation and be fine. Others of us- and I'd hazard a guess we're the seriously obese ones- simply lose control around such foods.

It's seemingly impossible to reconcile the two groups. Mildly overweight "normal" people eat occasional treats without any negative effects and so can't believe sugar is a problem for anyone. Hardcore, obese ex-sugar junkies will swear blind that they can't do moderation, and that cutting it out completely stopped their cravings and gave them control of their eating.

Both groups are right, and will argue til they're blue in the face that the other is wrong. That is the internetz in a nutshell.

Here you go, just saw it in the paper yesterday. Just skimmed it but it seems mostly caloric intake is the issue not specific carbs (as others have already pointed out)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500368_162-57381405/fructose-off-the-hook-for-overweight-and-obesity/

That study does *precisely* nothing to let fructose off the hook.

1. From the article: "However, the authors acknowledge that many of the studies they reviewed had serious shortcomings. Therefore, their conclusions are, in a word, inconclusive."
2. They are, like many here, only looking at "it's a matter of Calories", not the metabolic impact of those nutrients outside of energy balance. For example, does fructose impact your overall system in a way that makes you desire to eat more? The answer appears to be "yes". Does fructose have a negative impact on a whole variety of other health issues due to Advanced Glycation Endproducts? The answer appears to be "yes". Does fructose appear to have a negative impact on uric acid levels? The answer appears to be "yes".

LULZ

Ignored.

The burden of proof falls on those making the claim. If you actually believe teh frucktoez is da devil, please provide any RELEVENT evidence to support your claim.

Re my point 1. The authors of the study acknowledged its weakness and that it was inconclusive.
Re my point 2. Really? You are not aware of this? Really??

Hint: Rat studies where they were fed the equivalent of 1,000 diet sodas/day don't count.

LULZ

Do you understand what burden of proof means?

Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolicupset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed asthe sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that thecommon fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption.