Is sugar a toxin?

[Bull City]

What hurtlocker and others are saying is that some calories produce fat more than others. Lustig's book, which is based on his clinical experience, bears this out: sugar is bad and fiber is good. As an example, we think fruit juice is good, but it is full of sugar, with little fiber, and it will make you fat. On the other hand, whole fruit, with lots of fiber and the sugar, will not.

It validates the advice that you should (a) shop around the edge of the grocery store (produce, meat and dairy) and avoid the aisles that contain highly processed food, and (b) cook your own food, whatever it is. As to fat, we need some in our diet, and olive oil is better for us than animal fat.

Remo, have you read Lustig's book, Fat Chance?

[Remomex]

Remo, have you read Lustig's book, Fat Chance?

I have not read his book, but I've heard his lectures. He gets a lot right, but he does make some glaring mistakes.

I would never suggest a diet high in processed food and/or added sugar is a good diet, however, I disagree that sugar calories are somehow worse than non-sugar calories and lead to more weight gain.

[Remomex]

As a result I cannot logically argue Dr. Lustig's thesis on what sugar does to fat accumulation without just repeating what he says in the vid . While my little self study does not prove his thesis, I am listening a little harder as a result.

I can point out a few mistakes in his lecture:

1) He points out that the atkins diet and the Japanese diet are similar in that they lack fructose. So he claims the Japanese don't eat fruit. It doesn't take a Japanese person to tell you they consume plenty of fruits, which are rich in fructose.

2) He claims that fructose does not elicit an insulin and leptin response the way glucose does, so it does not curb appetite => which leads to overeating and weight gain. One issue with this is that the majority of fructose-containing foods also contain a significant amount of glucose. You won't find foods that ONLY have fructose. Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS is almost identical in the breakdown. You'd have to eat pure fructose to really not get the appetite suppression he claims. There are plenty of articles that reject the claim that fructose is less satiating than glucose.

Spitzer L, Rodin J. Effects of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake. Appetite. 1987 Apr;8(2):135-45. [Medline]
Rodin J, Reed D, Jamner L. Metabolic effects of fructose and glucose: implications for food intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;47(4):683–9.
Rodin J. Comparative effects of fructose, aspartame, glucose and water preloads on calorie and macronutrient intake. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:428–35. [Medline]
Rodin J. Effects of pure sugar versus mixed starch fructose loads on food intake. Appetite 1991;17:213–9.[Medline]
Moran TH. Fructose and satiety. J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1253S-1256S. Epub 2009 Apr 29. [Medline]

Pretty much every single study that claims to show that fructose does indeed lead to increased appetite shares this: the subjects consume huge/excessive amounts of fructose, equal to 6+ soft drinks. That simply does not apply to the average person. It doesn't take a scientist to tell you that drinking that many soft drinks daily is a terrible idea, not just for your weight but for your overall health.

Also, as long as you stop yourself from consuming the EXTRA calories, fructose by itself won't make you gain weight. It's those EXTRA calories that lead to weight gain. Fructose doesn't have magical properties that lead to weight-gain.

3) He likes to blame increased carbohydrate consumption as the primary culprit for the obesity epidemic. He uses data from a survey study on children aged 2-17 from 1989-1995. Two problems here - (1) survey data is not the most reliable (2) the study is old.

A USDA Economic Research Services study from 1970-2007 shows that the rise in obesity has a close correlation with an increased caloric intake in general (not just carbs). A study by the National Health & Nutrition Examination found that over the past 20 years people have become at least 10% more sedentary => fewer calories burned => increased weight gain.

[Remomex]

Remo, have you read Lustig's book, Fat Chance?

Sorry for the multiple posts.

http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/defau ... Chance.pdf

[smiles]

Here's my .02 about sugar consumption.

It's not so much about actual body weight as body composition.
My "experiment" is no more controlled or precise as any others mentioned above...simply personal experience.
I'm now happily retired from top tier level rowing.
Still plenty active & probably ridiculously more than the average layman...
but on the flipside nowhere NEAR the volume &/or intensity from the serious training days.
Definitely a solid 10-13 lbs heavier than my old training wt (which was a good 10-13lbs over racing wt)
but have managed to maintain the same wardrobe throughout all fluctuations.
In other words, my actual size has not fluctuated in proportion with my weight.
I love my avocados & love my nuts.
They have a lot of calories so they keep the weight on.
But the 1st things to fall by the wayside have been weights & yoga.
Would LOVE to add them back in eventually simply because I enjoy both,
but for now just don't have the time.
That said while nowhere near as jacked as back in the old days,
I've managed to maintain a great deal of muscle mass relatively speaking & avoid a huge increase in bf% which I attribute primarily to diet.
Definitely LOVE sugar way too much to cut it all out like the masochistic paleos, but if you keep it to all natural & high fiber foods as opposed to processed, while it won't necessarily keep the weight off, it will at least make it look like it is whereas the situation can actually be reversed for those who even eat a lower calorie but highly processed &/or sugar-filled diet.
You may actually weigh less, but may not look it nor necessarily have a lot of energy.
In a nutshell-
If weight is your primary concern, focus on calories.
If body comp is your priority, focus on where they come from.
If it's both then you need to pay attention to both.

[Bull City]

On fruit, Lustig compares how much orange juice can you drink vs. how many oranges can you eat. You can drink easily drink the juice of several oranges, but you cannot eat that many oranges. The difference is the fiber. The fiber sets up your system to metabolize the fructose so that your insulin doesn't f*ck you up - at least that's the scientific explanation.

Now, if some smart SOB can come up with martinis and wine that have a lot of fiber, I will be set. What about a Metamucil Martini?

[petermech]

I went to the Saratoga Coaching Conference in January . One talk I went to was given by Paul Arciero , FACSM.
He said that food nutrition is not an exact science. People are different and as example said one person may sweat more than another person.
Paul Arciero said that calories are not all the same. There is a thremic effect of food. It take energy to process food and that fat, carbohydrates, protein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food See last paragraph, Processed foods and TEF
He also said exercise alone is not all that effective at altering the body composition and athletic performance. Nutrient quality and timing matter most (for fitness). Best results depends upon a combination of both exercise and optimal nourishment.
It is not about the amount of calories that they are taking in for optmal performance but the type of food they are bringing in.
He did a study with the same amount of calories but of different groups, One had a slightly higher protein intake but a very high quality protein another consumed the same amount of caleries but a higher amount of carbohydates and the number of times they eat per day. He said the numbers were profound. He said there is not a question, don't let anyone tell you that a calorie is a calorie. They are not even close. Calories are not the same and don't have your athelate feel that way either. It is the quality of the calorie that you are consuming that will ignite or surpress prosesses in the body more or less. So it is all about the quality (for fitness).
He also said timing and what you eat such as post-exercise and breakfast has an impact.

[southernrower]

found these
http://chc.ucsf.edu/sew/PDFs/Stanhope_etal_2011.pdf
http://fatnews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5117

[bloomp]

Remomex,

A calorie is not a calorie. Genetic variance in our bodies metabolic phenotype leads to a large variance in how different chemicals are processed. Just like we see variance in muscle fiber types, we see variance in carbohydrate and sugar tolerance.

If person A and B eat 2000 calories, but person A has a higher resistance to insulin, more of those calories are unavailable to be burned - they are targeted for storage. Person B boasts better resilience to our society's problems with an overabundance of sugar. I repeat, a calorie is not a calorie for that exact reason - two people on the same diet can have hugely different responses.

You refer to the correlation between total calories consumed and increases in obesity. The real correlation starts in the 1970s when the AHA and other bodies recommended against higher fat content in diets, and as food companies were forced to produce lower fat products they found that low-fat foods taste like shyte. So they added sweet compounds to compensate for the missing satiety factor of fat. As fat consumption has gone down, incidence of the VERY DISEASES that the AHA was working to prevent have gone up. Sure, total calories plays the major role in the obesity crisis, but the very addictive property of sugar plays a huge role in the increased caloric consumption.

[Remomex]

Sure, total calories plays the major role in the obesity crisis, but the very addictive property of sugar plays a huge role in the increased caloric consumption.

You're making my point for me..... it's the "increased caloric consumption" that leads to weight gain, not the "very addictive property of sugar."

As for your comments on insulin resistance - if both person A and person B consume the exact same number of calories and burn the exact same number of calories, then both will gain/lose/maintain the same weight. It's the fact that one of them will end up eating more than leads to a higher weight. The fact that more calories are targeted for storage doesn't matter if you burn them off. It only matter if you keep eating more and have excess calorie consumption.

There is no possible way you can argue that excess caloric intake is NOT what leads to weight gain (as long as we're not considering water weight). If you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. There's no way around it. Same way as if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. It's very simple. You can talk food composition, macronutrients, insulin, etc, etc, etc.... but the fact remains, more calories = weight gain, fewer calories = weight loss.

[hurtlocker]

I found a summary of 15 major controlled studies of various diet approaches and their results. Interestingly, it looks to the uneducated eye that there was greater weight loss in the low carb high fat diets and better improvements in blood chems, even when the participants were given no calorie restriction on the low carb. The other diet types were restricted on calories. If this is true then a cal is not a cal.

http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/stor ... risons.pdf

[flatwater]

Calories in = calories out is not wrong, but it is limited. The theory only works in conjunction with the Theory that not all Calories are created equal.

[Steven M-M]

Remonex, When you (and others) say "calories in," do you mean calories "into" the mouth or calories as they enter the metabolism or are stored after digestion?

[smiles]

Sure, total calories plays the major role in the obesity crisis, but the very addictive property of sugar plays a huge role in the increased caloric consumption.

You're making my point for me..... it's the "increased caloric consumption" that leads to weight gain, not the "very addictive property of sugar."

As for your comments on insulin resistance - if both person A and person B consume the exact same number of calories and burn the exact same number of calories, then both will gain/lose/maintain the same weight. It's the fact that one of them will end up eating more than leads to a higher weight. The fact that more calories are targeted for storage doesn't matter if you burn them off. It only matter if you keep eating more and have excess calorie consumption.

There is no possible way you can argue that excess caloric intake is NOT what leads to weight gain (as long as we're not considering water weight). If you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. There's no way around it. Same way as if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. It's very simple. You can talk food composition, macronutrients, insulin, etc, etc, etc.... but the fact remains, more calories = weight gain, fewer calories = weight loss.

You're not a lightweight are you???
Sigh...if only it was that simple.
Haha
I would suggest that may be an oversimplification of the differences from body to body as I've rowed in more ltwt team boats than I can count where we all had to be the exact same weight, were completing the same workouts, but had very different caloric consumptions or some had to complete extra workouts to match caloric consumptions.
Moreover, isn't it a proven fact that muscle actually burns calories more efficiently than(body)fat so essentially a body with more muscle mass could consume more calories than one at the exact same weight with more body fat?
And that's disregarding the thermogenic properties of food although pretty sure that contributes to the process as well if certain foods are going to be more likely to aid in muscle development whereas others will most likely hinder it?

[Remomex]

You're not a lightweight are you???

No, I am not.

I would suggest that may be an oversimplification of the differences from body to body as I've rowed in more ltwt team boats than I can count where we all had to be the exact same weight, were completing the same workouts, but had very different caloric consumptions or some had to complete extra workouts to match caloric consumptions.

This is because every person has a different body composition and metabolism. You may burn 500 calories in X workout, while your pair partner may burn 600. Or you may have more muscle mass so you burn more calories throughout the day. Or you snack all day and your pair partner doesn't. There are so many variations in how each of our bodies burns calories. So this goes back to what I say - it's all about "calories in - calories out". It's just that the calories out part of the equation depends on many, many things that will be different from one individual to another.

Remonex, When you (and others) say "calories in," do you mean calories "into" the mouth or calories as they enter the metabolism or are stored after digestion?

I mean calories in "the mouth" so to speak. So just the total calories in the food you eat, before it is processed by your body.