0

votes

How much fruit for weight loss and is anti sugar stance backed by science?

Commented on April 03, 2014
Created March 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM

I was recently listening to rob wolfs podcast and he says he recommends protein, a bit of fat and leafy greens for people with fat to lose. He said that mostly ran meat with some fat and some veggies is the most efficient way to lose weight though it might make you feel a bit crappy.

He also says that fruit should really be limited as sugar slows down the metabolic processes. However i have been watching some videos on youtube by people like Alan Aragon and Omar Isuf and they say that sugar and fat and protein do not matter for fat loss and that you could eat 100 percent sugar or 20 percent sugar etc and it would not matter and that science clearly proves that all that matters is calories.

They do say that to feel good and perform well eating quality food with plenty of micronutrients is essential however they call anti sugar people pseudo scientists and gadders and they also address the same issue regarding people who claim fat is bad and say they are lying too and that no macronutrient and no food is bad food and that sugar is not damaging along as micronutrient goals are met and you will lose weight if you hit a calorie deficit.

I am liking paleo because I have insane food craving when I eat any junk food and can't moderate my intake and generally I feel great eating grain and dairy free. But I am curious about this sugar issue. Not because I feel the urge to eat fruit because I am mainly a meat and veg person taste wise, but I can't understand vilifying sugar, I was lied to about fat being bad for years and I don't want to fall for the same fear mongering regarding sugar.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 03, 2014
at 11:12 AM

Me does love a good rant....arrrrrr....the internet follows me in my handheld through many long walks....my pr for down votes was 5, I was working on breaking that....

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 03, 2014
at 04:52 AM

@Drael your're not helping move the ball forward by simply posting "here's a lot of research on this bob. A google scholar search will reveal a whole bunch."

I had links to what I believe are useful articles... I posted them, not "find them yourself".

Like I said, I think sugar, for most people, is a problem. And yes, most very active people can tolerate sugar. But I provided Peter Attia as a counter example, a young very active, athletic person who tolerates sugar VERY POORLY.

I've done my n=1 work, I've decided to limit fruit and absolutely minimize sugar, works for me.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 03, 2014
at 04:44 AM

If you look at the ingredients in processed foods...HFCS & white grape juice are up there with all other types of cheap sugars. Yeah, refined starches (grains) are in the mix as well...gotta use something to hold the shape of solid objects. Follow the money.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 03, 2014
at 04:37 AM

I guess you didn't appreciate the analogous reasoning to acetaminophen dosing and acute vs chronic toxity.

He was not "determined to make sugar the devil", his aim was to "peel the onion" about the concept of toxicity.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:51 AM

Read the wiki drael. Anyone that beat up Schwarzenegger and said "If man made it don't eat it" has a lot in common with ancient paleos. Even if he ate a lot of fruit and not much fat, he better exemplifies the ideal than Jimmy Moore.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:48 AM

I suggest you skip over to google scholar, and pump in some key words "sucrose, fructose, insulin, visceral fat, metabolic syndrome" and make up your own mind. Science really doesn't work with "proof" and thats especially true of nutritional science, which is way too complex to have conclusive conclusions. You best bet with any science is to stop looking for someone to tell you what to think, and to look at the studies, and the metabolic processes yourself.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:45 AM

Science doesn't work with "proof", it works with disproof. So you usually don't have any hard answers in any nutritional science, which is nearly impossible to properly "control" for (how do you know what nutrients, food, genes, etc is producing the effects). What you have is more "the suggestion", and then each persons interpretation. And that does seem to suggest that fructose may not be ideal for those needing to lose weight IMO, for a variety of reasons. But others will disagree saying that calories is all that matters. There is no "proof" either way.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:37 AM

I downvoted you because you misrepresented the truth. This is about sugar, _in the context of weightloss_ (which often involves insulin resistance and visceral fat), not some weird low carb advertising bugbear you have, lol. You do often get ranty. Take a day off the internet, go walk on the beach!

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:34 AM

The combination has all the primary features of metabolic syndrome. That alone should be enough to make people wary of excess sugar, _if_ one is trying to lose weight. its entirely possible that a hyper active person would be fine with refined sugar. But that wasn't the OP's question. Weight loss. Again, there is a large body of studies out there, there would be no benefit in me posting a biased limited selection. People should look at the cellular metabolic process of fructose, and the science themselves - make up there own mind.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:32 AM

Agreed on the mix. It's just as hard to overeat pure sugar as pure fat. The mixture of the two is more appealing (candy bars, eg), but to really up the calories and make a processed food irresistible (in the cheapest way) you have to add starch. Cheetos are made of fat and starch, for instance. The workhorse of processed foods is dry breakfast cereal, which is mainly starch, with some sugar added to make it palatable, and some vitamins and minerals to make you think it's healthy. They fooled me....

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:30 AM

There's a lot of research on this bob. A google scholar search will reveal a whole bunch. Some minority of it conflicting, TBH. I don't see the merits of showing everyone only part of that picture. But we do know that fructose is processed in the liver - 100% true. And anything that increases liver load significantly may be associated with NAFLD, or visceral fat (in some at least, perhaps though not in all). Additionally, insulin resistance is well established to be associated with sugars, thats concluded.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:25 AM

Was he trying to lose weight, as per the OP? What does his liver look like? Did he eat loads of sugar? Relevance? My granma lived to 97, and she didn't exercise, ate bread ever day, and constantly baked sweet stuff. lol.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:24 AM

What does that garbled paragraph even mean?

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:18 AM

The dissembling comes in trying to prove that sugar is toxic when in fact it is not. If Attia would draw a sensible conclusion about over consumption I'd be OK, but he's determined to make sugar the very devil. In doing so he becomes like Chicken Little, fixated on a single cause and thus completely oblivious to the greater dangers from over consumption of fats and refined grains. I see sugar as an additive that aids and abets obesity rather than the actual culprit: processed food.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 03, 2014
at 12:11 AM

I pretty much disagree... my observations in the world is sugar is more of a problem that fat.

imo, hard overeat fat alone...combine fat with sugar and BINGO ...binge food, unhinged eating.

imo, sugar deserves a LOT of the blame followed by processed foods (unuallly made of refined grains & lots of sugar plus crappy fats)

imo, it's hard to overeat clean foods... it takes processed foods...sugar, refined carbs and fat to do trigger the over eating.... leave out the fat and keep sugar, refined carbs people will still overeat it..... YMMV

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 03, 2014
at 12:02 AM

I don't recall the details of the second article...been a while since I read it but, imo, sugar consumption is up a LOT more than 19% if one includes all the processed foods with HFCS and white grape juice. Plus fruit juice & soft drink consumption is WAY up since I was a kid (~50 years). I wasn't poor...sodas & fruit juice were expensive and personal bottl of coke was 6 oz.....not 32 ozs.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 02, 2014
at 11:56 PM

@thhq

I totally disagree with your comment about "dissembling commentary". Perhaps you missed his point.... dose AND personal susceptibly makes the poison.

Attia is trained as an engineer as am I. imo his article is detailed and fair.

again, imo, sugar is chronically toxic for certain people at certain doses.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 02, 2014
at 11:46 PM

I'm not a sugar fan & I also each minimal fruit. Please post some links to scholarly papers to add to the discussion.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 12:22 PM

Jack Lalanne was not skinny fat. He didn't live to 95 avoiding fructose. He avoided being sedentary. That made him more paleo than I'll ever be. Jack Lalanne is the paleo gold standard.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 12:00 PM

I ate fructose and lost 6 inches of visceral fat. If you ACT like a paleo you can eat a normal human omnivorous diet. If you PRETEND that diet is all there is to it, eat what Gary and Peter tell you to eat.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 02, 2014
at 11:15 AM

Studies show that fructose increases abdominal fat, as opposed to subcutaneous which is associated with disease, and metabolic syndrome. This makes sense as fructose unlike all other carbs is processed immediately by the liver. Too much sugar overwhelms your liver, even if you are skinny fat - look at all fruit eaters, they are all skinny fat. Although there are some people who eat high levels of honey and fruit traditionally, that is still not as much as sad dieters, and they are super highly active.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 09:59 AM

If you read the USDA study you'll come to realize that the dose is making the poison, and that the problem is overconsumption of added fats and high glycemic carbs. Sugar deserves some of the blame, but demonizing it in particular is a distraction from the real problem.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 09:55 AM

Thanks for getting it working. I think that Attia (and Lustig) are overly preoccupied with sugar. The first article puts in a lot of dissembling commentary on acute vs chronic toxicity. Attia wants it both ways: to say sugar is toxic even though everyone knows its not. The second article states that sugar consumption has gone up 4x in the last 40 years. I think it's up but prefer 19%, which is a huge difference.

http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/NatureFirst%20USA/Special%20Reports%5CUSDA%5CDietary%20Assessment%20of%20Major%20Trends%20in%20US%20Food%20Consumption%20-%201970%20-%202005.pdf

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 01, 2014
at 03:50 PM

Good point. I run multiple browsers for a number of reasons and IE is definitely my "last choice". Chrome is my first choice on all my machines.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on April 01, 2014
at 03:38 PM

The real question is: Why are you using IE? lol :)

Chrome for the win!

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 01, 2014
at 03:32 PM

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try. I was thinking it's a PC/IE issue for my Dell laptop because I dont have the issue on MacBookPro w/ Chrome.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 01, 2014
at 11:04 AM

The spammers aren't having a problem bobk.....I've had better luck if I follow a link with some text.

10ec51c0e6e41939215a55316ad3d0b7

(40)

on March 28, 2014
at 03:45 PM

When you added carbs back in, did you gain the weight back or did you stay stable? I'm wondering because I feel burned out but I'm afraid that taking a break of a couple days of higher carbs will make me slip back.

3e0e57c7428e1fa0b2fcada9fc1659b0

on March 27, 2014
at 12:11 AM

Of course exercise plays a significant part. It's just worth noting also that when we talk about using exercise to metabolize sugar, it's worth taking the time to get a rough calculation of the calories in vs. out. I think that most people don't have a good frame of reference for calories burnt vs. the calories in their food.

This is why calorie counting does in fact work for losing weight, but at the same time taking a low carb approach is also very effective for weight loss, and in my opinion a whole lot more comfortable in terms of cravings and time commitment.

4775e2485bd498f20db64ab6fc77975f

(0)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:59 PM

I put you back to neutral. A lot of people just don't like hearing something different than what has been almost permenantly embedded into their heads. You must look at science from both sides. Carbs are not the fat making little machines everyone thinks they are, at best, they just aid the process.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:32 PM

Sadly I cannot even offer you an upvote, the way the site works these days. Instead I'll offer you free use of my hibernation theory. I've become a strong believer in hibernation as a wintertime alternative to ice bathing. To begin, the reason caves exist is solely for the benefit of bears and humans......zzzzzzz......wake me up when it's summer DAMN BATS stinks in here.....

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on March 26, 2014
at 05:12 PM

When I took calculus back in my college days, I remember how we would solve problems on finding minimums and maximums: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Calculus_Optimization_Methods. This kind of reminds me of that. Low-carb is successful because it relies on physiological facts to ascertain the weight loss versus effort function and then determines the point along that function which results in weight loss while minimizing effort.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on March 26, 2014
at 05:05 PM

Indeed, one could be thin on a low-fat diet. This is primarily because the human body cannot create energy from thin air. If the basal metabolic rate is 1,200 calories and only 1,000 are consumed, the person will lose weight and eventually become thin. It is a very arduous and unpleasant way of losing weight but it will work. However, there are ways of optimizing this process so that the same outcome can be achieved with far more efficiency. It helps to know the underlying physiological mechanisms as it gives us a better idea of the optimal point along the curve of effort vs. weight loss.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 04:48 PM

Gastronomer you can also become very thin on a low fat diet. Admit that there are different paths to the same goal and I'll quit arguing. Persistance is the only reason any approach works.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on March 26, 2014
at 04:38 PM

Actually, the body can manufacture fat from glucose alone, it doesn't need fat to store fat. Indeed, one can easily become quite obese on a very low-fat diet. Simple biochemical explanation: http://library.med.utah.edu/NetBiochem/FattyAcids/5_1b.html

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 04:28 PM

Most people who go for LC don't persist. They need bloat gone NOW, typically so they can fit into some dress. Of course it works if you go the distance, and congratulations. That's not how books are sold though, which is why people keep reinventing Atkins, and why it bugs me. GT is the worst, because of the layers of pseudo science he built on top of a very simple concept. Damning exercise and fructose is moronic.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on March 26, 2014
at 04:00 PM

Come on man you took a shot at low carb and called it "a smoke and mirrors gimmick", that was uncalled for. Low-carb does work very well for many, myself included, for much more than a mere 5 lbs weight loss (I've maintained a 35 lbs weight loss, and sometimes I even have to force myself to eat more to keep from becoming underweight, defined as BMI <19). So I don't see the need to smear it as you have done.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 02:50 PM

Excess sugar aids and abets fat deposition, but the fat comes from excess dietary fat. De novo lipogenesis is a secondary mechanism, and is only important if someone is fat-starved. Americans eat 45% of their calories as fat and are not fat-starved.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 02:43 PM

I'll go for the downvote record....truth hurts, doesn't it? I didn't name the LC promoters but others have....why give them more undeserved recognition for riding in on Atkins' horse....

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 02:38 PM

Sorry I can't upvote. While low carb weight loss looks good on the scale, IMO if you don't keep your activity a lot of the weight loss will be muscle wasting.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:28 AM

I won't downvote, but be aware that blood sugar regulation isn't just macro wonking. The BEST and most paleo way to reduce your blood sugar is to metabolize it. Eating fructose makes all the sense in the world as long as you metabolize it, sooner better than later.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:23 AM

Small amounts of carbs will take you out of ketosis, and if that's your weight loss plan you'll get immediate regain as the body reloads its glycogen stores. Otherwise it's all just calories eaten and calories metabolized, and any deficit works irregardless of the macros.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:18 AM

Sorry bad math. The digestive energy for protein is not that massive, and the reported calorie totals are the metabolic effect you get. The idea that there are super foods (for macros and satiation) is right, but the idea that there are negative calorie foods is not.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:15 AM

Among the bloggers I have more respect for Aragon than for the usual Paleo suspects. He's a PT and puts activity first, which I agree with wholeheartedly in the ancestral paleo sense. If you're a hunter-gatherer, sugar is at the top of the most-desirable foods list: it boosts blood glucose immediately, giving the energy you need to keep hunting and gathering. However, most of the Paleo bloggers cater to inactive sedentary people, for whom excess sugar (and fat!!!) are the worst foods.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 25, 2014
at 10:59 PM

Calories calories calories! That's the key to weight loss.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 25, 2014
at 10:53 PM

Even if there was no difference in macronutrients… the processing of the foods would make a difference. Take 2000 calories of cooked sweet potatoes, well-done ground beef… compare to 2000 calories of hot dogs, potato chips, and chocolate chip cookies… same number of bioavailable calories.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on March 25, 2014
at 07:53 PM

This was an interesting one comparing a low carb vs high carb + protein breakfast of the same calories with sedentary adults. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22178258

They found meal timing and overall satiety offset the effect of eating sugary cookies and ice cream with breakfast, outperforming the low carb diet for weight loss. (Study likely funded by cookie and ice cream peddlers, haha.)

It seems like I've seen metrics where the biggest predictor for whether someone will lose weight on a diet is their ability to stick to it rather than the diet itself.

7160a3fb485cb0af573c0292fdb08144

(35)

on March 25, 2014
at 07:07 PM

No one would deny that. The point is that if the "calorie is a calorie" theory is true, it would have to hold true in all cases. It holds true in some, not in others. If you're trying to lose weight, then you probably aren't someone who handles sugar well; therefore, you should limit it.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on March 25, 2014
at 04:46 PM

On the extreme side of that, you can run on sugar with greater than 2,000 calories a day and keep a thin frame. It isn't inherently fattening if you're born with capable genes or able to upregulate carbohydrate oxidation genetics (epigenetically influenced by lifestyle / environment.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1f69-xHqYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-oix5SynVY

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

11 Answers

best answer

0
Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 12:52 PM

This does not directly answer your questions , but data is a good antidote to fear-mongering Paleo bloggers

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/humansciences/content/carbohydrate

Two takeaways, from the graphs in the article:

Carb refeeding replenishes blood glucose within 15 minutes. So it's good mid-exercise as energy to continue exercising. Carbs are only empty calories if you don't need them.

Low carbohydrate dieting rapidly consumes the body's muscle glycogen stores, almost completely in 48 hours. This is the Atkins weight loss miracle, how you lose 5 pounds in 2 days. Unfortunately none of it is fat, and it is regained just as rapidly when you start eating carbs again. A smoke-and-mirrors gimmick, but most low carb diet promoters rely on it to sell their plans.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 04:28 PM

Most people who go for LC don't persist. They need bloat gone NOW, typically so they can fit into some dress. Of course it works if you go the distance, and congratulations. That's not how books are sold though, which is why people keep reinventing Atkins, and why it bugs me. GT is the worst, because of the layers of pseudo science he built on top of a very simple concept. Damning exercise and fructose is moronic.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 02:43 PM

I'll go for the downvote record....truth hurts, doesn't it? I didn't name the LC promoters but others have....why give them more undeserved recognition for riding in on Atkins' horse....

4775e2485bd498f20db64ab6fc77975f

(0)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:59 PM

I put you back to neutral. A lot of people just don't like hearing something different than what has been almost permenantly embedded into their heads. You must look at science from both sides. Carbs are not the fat making little machines everyone thinks they are, at best, they just aid the process.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:37 AM

I downvoted you because you misrepresented the truth. This is about sugar, _in the context of weightloss_ (which often involves insulin resistance and visceral fat), not some weird low carb advertising bugbear you have, lol. You do often get ranty. Take a day off the internet, go walk on the beach!

0
8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 02, 2014
at 11:18 AM

Short answer - fructose. There's loads of research on fructose. Google scholar it. Its processed in the liver, and is associated with visceral fat and thus disease. Indeed anything which creates a heavy workload for the liver might have such an effect (at least in some people). Visceral fat is more resistant to weightloss and because its also associated with insulin resistance, this makes sugar a double edged sword for those needing to lose weight - which is the topic, weight loss. In weight loss questions we should always be considering metabolic syndrome, and there is plenty of reason to suspect fructose may not be a friend of metabolic syndrome.

Also, OP, don't let other people do your thinking for you. Look into the whole feild of research yourself for a little, if you want to know, make your own mind up. Knowledge is not as simple as right and wrong ideas. Or proof.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 02, 2014
at 11:46 PM

I'm not a sugar fan & I also each minimal fruit. Please post some links to scholarly papers to add to the discussion.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 12:00 PM

I ate fructose and lost 6 inches of visceral fat. If you ACT like a paleo you can eat a normal human omnivorous diet. If you PRETEND that diet is all there is to it, eat what Gary and Peter tell you to eat.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 12:22 PM

Jack Lalanne was not skinny fat. He didn't live to 95 avoiding fructose. He avoided being sedentary. That made him more paleo than I'll ever be. Jack Lalanne is the paleo gold standard.

0
3491e51730101b18724dc57c86601173

(8395)

on April 01, 2014
at 09:07 PM

It would be interesting to do a little N=1. If you are actively trying to lose weight, stay on your Paleo lifestyle but play with the macros. Try making 20% or more of your daily intake sugars (fructose and glucose) from fruit and see what happens to your weight, how you feel, etc. .

Personally, eating more than just a little bit of low glycemic fruit (berries, melon) makes me feel awful--it messes with my blood sugar/insulin levels, despite the fact that fructose is not supposed to change your blood glucose levels. As a result, I've never been a big fruit eater, although I enjoy having some very occasionally. But your metabolism might be different and it would be interesting to hear what your experience is.

Except for tropical areas, access to fruit was extremely limited in time to a point where fruit was ripe but not yet overripe (read that as fermented). Nowadays, sugar and pure fructose is so readily available that it is too easy to over-indulge and overwhelm our metabolic systems. Too much fruit may be harmful (see fruitarians and the incidence of pancreatic disease), but if your metabolism tolerates some and you are still losing weight, then go for it.

0
F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on April 01, 2014
at 12:19 AM

I'm a little late to the party but I think the sugar / fruit discussion needs to be a LOT more nuanced and here is a link to an article that really 'peels the onion'.

Peter Attia blogs about the "toxicity" of sugar.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-can-carbohydrate-restriction-be-healthy-if-it-means-limiting-natural-foods-like-fruits-and-vegetables

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 01, 2014
at 11:04 AM

The spammers aren't having a problem bobk.....I've had better luck if I follow a link with some text.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 09:55 AM

Thanks for getting it working. I think that Attia (and Lustig) are overly preoccupied with sugar. The first article puts in a lot of dissembling commentary on acute vs chronic toxicity. Attia wants it both ways: to say sugar is toxic even though everyone knows its not. The second article states that sugar consumption has gone up 4x in the last 40 years. I think it's up but prefer 19%, which is a huge difference.

http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/NatureFirst%20USA/Special%20Reports%5CUSDA%5CDietary%20Assessment%20of%20Major%20Trends%20in%20US%20Food%20Consumption%20-%201970%20-%202005.pdf

Medium avatar

(10601)

on April 02, 2014
at 09:59 AM

If you read the USDA study you'll come to realize that the dose is making the poison, and that the problem is overconsumption of added fats and high glycemic carbs. Sugar deserves some of the blame, but demonizing it in particular is a distraction from the real problem.

0
0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

on March 26, 2014
at 08:53 PM

Carbs raise leptin, which tells our body to burn fat. So eating carbs is a friend of weight loss.

I *did* make up this argument but I probably wouldn't be able to defend it adequately because it's about as ridiculous and reductionist as the carbs=insulin=body fat storage theory. But y'know, if anyone wants to get rich using my theory to sell diet books I wouldn't say no to a royalty check.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:32 PM

Sadly I cannot even offer you an upvote, the way the site works these days. Instead I'll offer you free use of my hibernation theory. I've become a strong believer in hibernation as a wintertime alternative to ice bathing. To begin, the reason caves exist is solely for the benefit of bears and humans......zzzzzzz......wake me up when it's summer DAMN BATS stinks in here.....

0
9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

on March 26, 2014
at 01:37 PM

When I was actively trying to lose weight I dropped all fruits, as I was eating low-carb (< 25g per day). This worked for 2-3 months, but the low carb in combination with high activity (Crossfit and running) was too much and I eventually added back carbs, primarily fruits, sweet potatoes and root vegetables.

As others have noted, the scientific explanation for avoiding sugar is that sugary foods, and in fact any sweet taste (such as what comes from artificial sweetener), spikes your insulin level. This is a signal to your body to store fat, and so is the enemy of weight loss. There are studies that examine this topic which you can Google up.

Not all fruit is super-sweet and our ancestors clearly ate a lot of fruit, especially those that lived in tropical areas. But most of them were also not trying to lose weight. If you are going to eat fruit, I would assume that you're not going to easily lose weight, and try to choose fruits that are high in nutrition compared to volume or sugar level. Berries are good, as are things like kumquat and some other tart fruits. I am not as afraid of fruit as many paleo people, as long as I am eating the actual fruit, but not fruit juices, smoothies, or processed fruit foods. When you start to extract all of the sugars leaving behind the fiber and mass, that is when you amplify the undesirable effects of fruit and that should be avoided.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 02:38 PM

Sorry I can't upvote. While low carb weight loss looks good on the scale, IMO if you don't keep your activity a lot of the weight loss will be muscle wasting.

10ec51c0e6e41939215a55316ad3d0b7

(40)

on March 28, 2014
at 03:45 PM

When you added carbs back in, did you gain the weight back or did you stay stable? I'm wondering because I feel burned out but I'm afraid that taking a break of a couple days of higher carbs will make me slip back.

0
3e0e57c7428e1fa0b2fcada9fc1659b0

on March 25, 2014
at 11:44 PM

The main argument is insulin. Insulin is the hormone the regulates fat storage, and your insulin levels respond to the sugar in your blood stream, so by keeping the sugar in your bloodstream low you keep your insulin low, and eliminate opportunity to store excess calories as fat.

I didn't make up that argument and I probably wouldn't be able to defend it adequately due to not have a nutrition or biochemical background, but a popular articulation of the argument is found in Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint and Gary Taubes's Good Calories Bad Calories, and I'm sure plenty of other places as well.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:28 AM

I won't downvote, but be aware that blood sugar regulation isn't just macro wonking. The BEST and most paleo way to reduce your blood sugar is to metabolize it. Eating fructose makes all the sense in the world as long as you metabolize it, sooner better than later.

0
A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39

on March 25, 2014
at 04:56 PM

My thing is, will eating fruit and meat and veg be any less effective than than eating meat and veg with no fruit? If I am paleo and taking in good food, how will sugar from fruit slow me down if i am at a calorie defect but eating all natural paleo approved foods?

Is there proof of sugar slowing paleo weightless down as opposed to paleo without fruit and if so where is it?

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:23 AM

Small amounts of carbs will take you out of ketosis, and if that's your weight loss plan you'll get immediate regain as the body reloads its glycogen stores. Otherwise it's all just calories eaten and calories metabolized, and any deficit works irregardless of the macros.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 25, 2014
at 10:59 PM

Calories calories calories! That's the key to weight loss.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:45 AM

Science doesn't work with "proof", it works with disproof. So you usually don't have any hard answers in any nutritional science, which is nearly impossible to properly "control" for (how do you know what nutrients, food, genes, etc is producing the effects). What you have is more "the suggestion", and then each persons interpretation. And that does seem to suggest that fructose may not be ideal for those needing to lose weight IMO, for a variety of reasons. But others will disagree saying that calories is all that matters. There is no "proof" either way.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on April 03, 2014
at 01:48 AM

I suggest you skip over to google scholar, and pump in some key words "sucrose, fructose, insulin, visceral fat, metabolic syndrome" and make up your own mind. Science really doesn't work with "proof" and thats especially true of nutritional science, which is way too complex to have conclusive conclusions. You best bet with any science is to stop looking for someone to tell you what to think, and to look at the studies, and the metabolic processes yourself.

0
7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on March 25, 2014
at 04:53 PM

Keep in mind processing a calorie of protein may require energy to actually burn, so if you're getting 20 calories from protein and 20 calories from sugar, they are the same...but you may have to burn 6 calories to get the 20 protein calories. (so yes, but no, not really.)

Also have to keep in mind sugar negatively effects lots of other things. A dirrectly relevant one would be that eating 2000 calories of sugar may not be terribly satiating and on a diet where you're trying to lose weight this can be very, very, very bad. On top of the lack of micronutrients, blood sugar/insulin issues and maybe some inflammation/dental issues just to top it off.

But yes I do believe people can lose weight eating pure sugar - or any horrible diet - ...it's just the worst way possible to do it.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 11:18 AM

Sorry bad math. The digestive energy for protein is not that massive, and the reported calorie totals are the metabolic effect you get. The idea that there are super foods (for macros and satiation) is right, but the idea that there are negative calorie foods is not.

0
B5fb873f94766774e49a6f9d533a3223

on March 25, 2014
at 03:38 PM

Sugar tastes so great to us because it is so very scarce in nature. Our bodies are programmed to binge on it in order to elicit the insulin response, which essentially tells our bodies to store fat.

0
7160a3fb485cb0af573c0292fdb08144

on March 25, 2014
at 03:37 PM

Any "scientist" who claims all macros work the same is indeed a pseudo-scientist. To see if that hypothesis is true, we'd want to test it to an extreme to see if it is indeed good science. One extreme would be to feed someone 2,000 kcals of cake and soda. Feed another person of the same weight and body fat % 2,000 kcals of meat and veggies. Monitor exercise so that each is doing the exact same amount. If the calorie theory is true, then both of these people would theoretically have the same fat mass. Obviously, no one would argue that this would be the outcome; thus their theory is false. Sugar is inherently fattening. This video shows actual science that tells us why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on March 25, 2014
at 04:46 PM

On the extreme side of that, you can run on sugar with greater than 2,000 calories a day and keep a thin frame. It isn't inherently fattening if you're born with capable genes or able to upregulate carbohydrate oxidation genetics (epigenetically influenced by lifestyle / environment.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1f69-xHqYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-oix5SynVY

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 02:50 PM

Excess sugar aids and abets fat deposition, but the fat comes from excess dietary fat. De novo lipogenesis is a secondary mechanism, and is only important if someone is fat-starved. Americans eat 45% of their calories as fat and are not fat-starved.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on March 26, 2014
at 04:48 PM

Gastronomer you can also become very thin on a low fat diet. Admit that there are different paths to the same goal and I'll quit arguing. Persistance is the only reason any approach works.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 25, 2014
at 10:53 PM

Even if there was no difference in macronutrients… the processing of the foods would make a difference. Take 2000 calories of cooked sweet potatoes, well-done ground beef… compare to 2000 calories of hot dogs, potato chips, and chocolate chip cookies… same number of bioavailable calories.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!