Sugar: The Bitter Truth

[CptTrips]

Wab-

I'm a bottom line guy. And my problem with the Adkins diet is that - bottom line - it doesn't work very well at keeping weight off. And after all, THAT is the point of working on weight!

Simaril,

Hi.  Thanks for posting.  I was hoping for at least one intelligent conversation in this thread. 

I'm reading that article now.

Did you happen to view the vid I linked in the first post?  I was sorta interested in if you saw any obvious flaws in his argument.

Wab

[MORAY37]

Quite honestly, that is uncalled for.

Oh yes, of course because I posted something like I did, I am an uneducated person. And think about what you said because it just proves that you are a judgemental...... Nevermind. I'll just leave you be. You're honestly not worth losing my posting privileges.

You must be dynamite with the ladies. "Your lips are beautiful... I see you have a cold sore, you must have Herpes."

No, you cut on Penguin, for posting something that is taught in Junior High Biology.  HAR HAR... "how long did it take to google all that?"

Apparently, the norm... you can dish it, but not take it.

[Simaril]

Gotta admit I didn't. But I've been pretty familiar with the argument for and rationale behind the Atkins approach, and the "Zone" diet before that. Both put lots of emphasis on sugar intake and (especially for the Zone) insulin levels.

There's no doubt that higher insulin levels are associated with obesity and weight gain, and insulin resistance is a major risk factor for secondary disease. However, most of these diet programs make the logical error of confusing Correlation ("these things occur together") with Causation ("this factor causes that"). And in most every case, the metabolic changes the latest diet thing talks about are clearly correlated with weight gain, but are just as likely to be THE RESULT of overweight instead of the CAUSE.

Honestly, I find it downright tragic how many people get pulled off the tracks that are likely to succeed by things that seem easier. Some diet and supplement programs are "stone soup" - they use smoke and mirrors to get people to eat less by thinking that the magic supplement is causing the weight loss.

Worst of all are the truly morbidly obese people who look to major bariatric surgery not as a tool to help them lose, but as the final answer to their appetites. I've seen SO many lose 100lbs, but gain it all back a year or two later because the core problem (usually their drive to eat for non-hunger reasons) never gets changed.

And what most folks don't realize is that even after having major internal rerouting to help with weight loss, the average person who keeps weight off after bariatric surgery takes in only 1500 calories per day.

Thats right - even after having your guts rebuilt, to keep weight off you have to keep calories down.

[MORAY37]

Wab-

I'm a bottom line guy. And my problem with the Adkins diet is that - bottom line - it doesn't work very well at keeping weight off. And after all, THAT is the point of working on weight!

This.

[grizz441]

No, you cut on Penguin, for posting something that is taught in Junior High Biology. 

Yep, and the material is nice and fresh in his adolescent brain.   

I used to know that stuff, but I always hated biology so I have purged all things related.

[grizz441]

I'm a proponent in the strategy of keeping your Calories In Less Than Your Burn Rate if you are trying to lose a few pounds.  It's the simplest concept ever, and easy to track, since every food lists its calories, and you can easily find your estimated metabolism online based on age, height and weight.  Or, if you want to find your exact metabolism, you can track your weight and calories and back into your metabolism based on net burn rates.  It's pretty simple stuff, but difficult to will power away from things you enjoy.

[CptTrips]

Gotta admit I didn't. But I've been pretty familiar with the argument for and rationale behind the Atkins approach, and the "Zone" diet before that. Both put lots of emphasis on sugar intake and (especially for the Zone) insulin levels.

Actually you should.

This guys by the way is NOT an Atkins/ low carb diet fan.  This lecture is strickly about the special metabalic properties of fructose and how it meets the definition of "poison" and how high-fructose-corn syrup has been insinuated into nearly every aspect of our daily lives.

There was a lot I found very interesting.  Enough that I sat thru an hour and a half of biochemistry! 

One, the fact that we now have a scary incidence of obese 6 months olds.  Are these 6 month olds just not jogging as much as they used to?  (HFC has become a large ingredient in modern baby formula.)

I also was amazed at how much more of the calories from fructose go straight to fat production than the EXACT same amount of calories of glucose.

I was also shocked at how close ethenol metabalized like fructose.  I guess I should giveup my Ultra until I get back down to weight. 


,
Wab

[CptTrips]

I'm a proponent in the strategy of keeping your Calories In Less Than Your Burn Rate if you are trying to lose a few pounds.  It's the simplest concept ever, and easy to track, since every food lists its calories, and you can easily find your estimated metabolism online based on age, height and weight.  Or, if you want to find your exact metabolism, you can track your weight and calories and back into your metabolism based on net burn rates.  It's pretty simple stuff, but difficult to will power away from things you enjoy.

Certainly common sense.

However just counting calories may not be enough.  Note the study where the EXACT number of calories of fructose produced more more fat gain than the same number of calories of glucose.

Appearently, All calories are NOT equal.


-Wab

[Simaril]

Grizz -

Losing weight always boils down to taking in less than you burn. Just conservation of energy, plain old physics tells us that. And 25 years ago, that's all we thought was going on....skinny people don't eat too much, fat people do. But we're finding that it isn't quite that simple.

Now, there are MANY people in the US whose primary problem is that they eat more than they should; and MANY of those don't think they take in as many calories as they do. For those folks, well, it's time to cut out the appetizers, reduce calorie containing drinks,  and have smaller servings.

But - There are clear cut genetic influences here, so some folks find it far easier to gain weight than others. I see a number of people who genuinely are taking average to below average calories and still find it hard to lose weight. I've had some who are obese despite taking in 1200 - 1400 calories per day, and some who swear they can't lose weight despite carefully counting out 1000 calories daily.

Remember that the system is designed to avoid starvation, and that up until the last 20 -30 years most of us couldn't afford supersized servings. So when the body sees extra calories, it wants to hold on to them in case there's a famine this winter. And once it has the extra fat, it wants to keep it "just in case."

We are just beginning to understand an entire system of weight and metabolism control hormones that center on the gut, rather being triggered from the brain. Grehlin and Leptin are two of these, and the experts are just beginning to work out how they interact with appetite, "weight set points", and metabolism.

So anyway, the equation "weight change = (calories in - calories burned) x (a constant)" is true - but not the same constant for everyone.

[Simaril]

Certainly common sense.

However just counting calories may not be enough.  Note the study where the EXACT number of calories of fructose produced more more fat gain than the same number of calories of glucose.

Appearently, All calories are NOT equal.


-Wab

"All calories are not equal" could be the mantra for the Atkins approach.

The idea that fructose calories are distributed differently than other calories is controversial. Many experts - including some very big guns in the field, with tons of research to their credit - strongly believe that all calories are indeed created equal.

Also an aside

[CptTrips]

"All calories are not equal" could be the mantra for the Atkins approach.

The idea that fructose calories are distributed differently than other calories is controversial. Many experts - including some very big guns in the field, with tons of research to their credit - strongly believe that all calories are indeed created equal.

Also an aside

Well he goes through the metabalic process in pretty high detail in the vid.  Hence why I was asking if you could point out any exact flaw or misstatement based on your training.

Nevermind.  Forget I mentioned it.   

,
Wab

[Simaril]

It seems to me that the biggest issue with high fructose corn syrup is not its metabolic effects, but its powerful ability to trigger our sweetness sensors.

From a natural selection standpoint, those individuals who are particularly driven to consume important but hard to obtain nutritional substances are more likely to survive. Or, to phrase it more clearly in the reverse - if you don't crave what keeps you alive, you're more likely to be dead.

And what are the most common triggers for these cravings in our diet? saltiness, sweetness, and moistness (associated with fats and oils).

Without salt sources, we die. That's why salt deposits had strategic implications in ancient history. Sugary and fatty foods are high in calories, so we're more likely to avoid starvation if we eat them (as opposed to, I dunno, black bread). And vitamins are most rich in fruits and vegetables, which are high in fructose.

So it seems to me that rather than create artificial metabolic problems, fructose containing products are just better at triggering our appetite - and our tendency to overindulge.

[CptTrips]

"All calories are not equal" could be the mantra for the Atkins approach.

What are your thoughts on the Low Glycemic Diet? The goal being to lean towards slow burning carbs that don't chronocally spike insulin.

Wab

[grizz441]

So anyway, the equation "weight change = (calories in - calories burned) x (a constant)" is true - but not the same constant for everyone.

Yep, and that constant can be calculated if you track your Calories eaten for say, a month to get a good sample size, and track your weight change.  You can calculate your metabolism.

Wabbit, it doesn't matter what you eat, if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.  As for fat storage and body composition that is another issue, but as far as net weight is concerned, it's pretty simple stuff.

[Simaril]

Well he goes through the metabalic process in pretty high detail in the vid.  Hence why I was asking if you could point out any exact flaw or misstatement based on your training.

Nevermind.  Forget I mentioned it.   

,
Wab

No problem, Wab. But honestly, I'm not up to investing 90 minutes to watch the pitch.

Unfortunately, the biggest thing that my training shows me is that there is NOT going to be an easy answer to such complex problems as overweight. I mean, if there was a magic bullet diet approach out there, wouldn't it work so well that all the other ones would go out of business, and there wouldn't be any need for this years' crop of diet books?

So anything that promises to be a quick fix is probably a lie, or based on exaggerations.

Hard data shows that the best way to get and keep weight off is to eat smaller portions, and take in fewer calories - day in and day out for the long haul.