Sugar

 

Commotion about the sugar industry funding some studies in the 1960s; so what if the sugar industry paid for some studies? Are we forgetting that the prevalence of obesity has continued to rise, even though the carb and sugar intake in the US actually *decreased* since the turn of the century? Do statistics and facts even matter or we only pay attention to the sensationalistic and misleading press? 
Of course, if you are going to consume so much added sugar that you don’t have room for the minimum amount of nutritious food you are going to raise your caloric intake above your needs and gain fat as a result, but that would happen anyway with any other macro or foods that you consume in excess, once again, not one single ingredient deserves to be vilified. 
“Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition” Jamie Hale 
“Mysterious obesogens? Invisible fairies that sneak fat into your gut? Nope. We eat ~500 kcal/day more than the 1970s.” Alan Aragon
“The point is to show that if you reduce calories below expenditure, you’ll lose weight regardless of (and despite) the nutritional components. I’ll also add the most important aspect of any diet is adherence. Sure, it’s nice to speak of ideals. But what good is giving someone a “healthy” nutritional approach if they don’t follow it?” Dr. Brad Schoenfeld, PhD
“Avoidance of gluten and dairy (or any food, for that matter), should be done the basis of an objectively diagnosed intolerance or allergy. Avoidance of any food should NOT be done on the basis of pseudoscientific hearsay or diet lore. My only personal ‘rule’ is, whenever possible, avoid food avoidance.” Alan Aragon
BTW sugar is not addictive, what it does, it stimulates the pleasure center in our brains just like with any other thing that we enjoy, so, avoiding sugar will produce as many benefits as avoiding to pet the puppies (assuming you like puppies 😉 ) 
Image result for box of puppies

Also, sugar is a carbohydrate and: “The food we eat is composed of a variety of nutrients… As the chemical structures of these nutrients are fairly large, we must break them down into smaller, unbound, more soluble units in order to be absorbed into the body.     Once absorbed, these smaller units become usable by our cells… and once they enter the general circulation, their actual food source doesn’t really matter; once broken down and absorbed, the body doesn’t necessarily recognize the difference between the amino acids derived from whey protein in the form of protein powder or the ones derived from milk. Nor does it recognized the difference between glucose derived from whole wheat bread or the one from table sugar. And it doesn’t recognize the difference between mono unsaturated fats from a hamburger or mono unsaturated fats from olive oil. (Excerpt from The essentials of sport and exercise nutrition, PN)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgwsNh-UklQ&list=PLE6K8qPSmBr3r01UvSDX4lrQaT2ogvAcVhttp://ca.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt/food-addiction.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154616300638

https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418186?dopt=Abstract

References:
Sugar Industry: 

Even WebMD got tired of this being recycled:

“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”

Ref.:
N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 26;360(9):859-73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804748.Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.Sacks FM1, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD, McManus K, Champagne CM, Bishop LM, Laranjo N, Leboff MS, Rood JC, de Jonge L, Greenway FL, Loria CM, Obarzanek E, Williamson DA.

“Caloric balance is the major determinant of weight loss. Diets that reduce caloric intake result in weight loss. In the absence of physical activity, the optimal diet for weight loss contains 1400 to 1500 kcal/d, regardless of macronutrient composition.”

Ref.:
Obes Res. 2001 Mar;9 Suppl 1:1S-40S. Popular diets: a scientific review. Freedman MR1, King J, Kennedy E.

“Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomized to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.”

Ref.:
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 9;9(7):e100652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100652. eCollection 2014.Low carbohydrate versus isoenergetic balanced diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Naude CE1, Schoonees A1, Senekal M2, Young T3, Garner P4, Volmink J3.

“In conclusion, our results emphasize that substantial weight loss can occur when subjects consume low-energy diets as inpatients, and that this effect, as shown by Alford et al (12), is independent of the relative proportion of dietary fat and carbohydrate.”

Ref.:
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8.Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.Golay A1, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G.

“In an additional analysis from the POUNDS LOST study,5 no differences were reported among the 4 diet groups when examining other longer-term outcomes (such as food cravings or mood changes). Despite some short-term differences by the 2-year end point, regardless of their macronutrient composition, weight loss was associated with significant reductions in cravings for fats, sweets, and starches while cravings for fruits and vegetables increased.”

Ref:.
JAMA. 2014 Sep 3;312(9):900-1. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.10837. A diet by any other name is still about energy.Van Horn L. 

“We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie.”

Ref.:
Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S. (Lars Avemarie) 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s