subscribe Signup for our Newsletter expand Expand Browser
Calorie Count Blog

Fructose Not to Blame for Weight Gain


By +Carolyn Richardson on Mar 07, 2012 10:00 AM in Healthy Eating

Americans have a sweet tooth, but it’s not the reason for the obesity epidemic in this country. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, added sugars contribute an average of 16 percent of the total calories in American diets and the CDC reports children and adolescents' added sugar intake, at 362 and 282 calories a day for boys and girls respectively. These numbers have many people tying obesity to added sugar. However, a recent review of previous studies revealed the truth: sugar isn’t to blame for weight gain.

The Right Amount of Carbs

The Western diet has become synonymous with overweight and obesity. Nutrition researchers from multiple universities in Canada and the US looked to fructose to find a causal effect. A review of 31 trials of diets that compared diets with non-fructose carbohydrates with those supplemented with free fructose and found there was no effect on body weight in those trials that provided similar caloric intake. While trials with high doses of fructose did create significant weight gain, these were those that provided hypercaloric or excess calories as compared to a normal diet. The review suggests counting carbs is futile if daily caloric intake is in check. 

What about High Fructose Corn Syrup

The review, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, omitted studies that evaluated high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Because HFCS represents about 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods in the US, its omission should be noted. Turns out multiple studies have found high-fructose corn syrup results in excess weight gain in rats when compared to other sweeteners. One study gave rats a diet with the same amount of calories, but different amounts of HFCS and sucrose. Those on the HFCS diet gained significantly more body weight despite having consumed less calories of HFCS than sucrose. However another study on rats, compared the effects of HFCS consumption with those of agave, fructose, and the non-caloric sweetener Stevia. The sweeteners were administered in similar amounts and no difference in terminal body weights was found. However, plasmas lipid profiles were elevated in the fructose and HFCS groups.

For Your Appetite, Not Weight Loss

While these studies show cutting carbs won’t help you lose weight in the absence of calorie restriction, balancing your sugar intake will help control your appetite. You’ve heard the buzz about empty calories. The problem with added sugar consumption is that it lacks nutrients and fiber that can help you stay full longer. What’s more, generally speaking, both protein and fat grams are more satiating than added sugar. While changing your macronutrient profile to lower carbohydrates may seem like a winner, the increase in protein and fat, may be the hero in making the switch. You’ll be more satisfied with more protein and less fructose, which could lead to your eating less. What's more, drawing down foods with added sugar will help you stay within your daily caloric limits, while getting the vitamins, minerals and fiber your body needs.

Where to Cut

A breakdown of the percent of calories from total added sugars given in the diets of Americans reported by the USDA are soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks (36% of added sugar intake), grain-based desserts (13%), sugar-sweetened fruit drinks (10%), dairy-based desserts (6%), and candy (6%). Try cutting at least half of these in your diet a day and you could drop approximately 200 calories a day from your daily caloric intake.


Your thoughts...

How do you keep you sugar intake in check?



Comments


This is bogus based on everything I have read. Who authored this, a corn sugar lobbyist? Sugar IS the enemy, no doubt.



I completely agree. Who wrote this article, completely wrong, carolyn whomever she is, maybe she doesn't exist, should be fired by Calorie Count by writing this article. This is completely WRONG.



Any study showing significant differences in weight gain at constant calorie intake-expenditure between glucose and fructose would be suspect unless rats have a very different sugar metabolism.  Glucose are chemically identical sugars with slight structural differences and part of a number of simple six carbon sugars we evolved eating.  Complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides) digest into glucose.

As the author said, it's the right amount of carbs (calories).  Weight gain/loss is net calories.  

 If I weren't on the Atkins diet, I'd have trouble believing that there is no such thing as evil foods made by evil, sinister industry types, but for a while longer all carbs are inherently evil. Smile



HFCS is the devil of this Country, this study shows that they want to shy away from the true culprit. This was surely a study completed by a company close to the sweetener business. Its a shame the FDA lets these confusing messages out to people trying to get their health and bodies back in shape. Just remember this when your buying food, it is not cost effective for our Government to keep you alive and healthy!! If the average person lived past 80 years old, that would place a serious burden on our Social Security system etc.The FDA is not your friend and sites like this are instrumental to living long, and healthy lives. May you all live to 100!!



Correction on my comment.  I do not believe there is any inherently evil food made by sinister, evil industrial types.  Some foods are "healthier" than others.  If anyone believes that sugar, especially fructose is inherently evil, then they should stay away from things like apples, pears, figs, sweet corn and many more.

The article refers to research results, not someones uninformed opinion.  We also need to remember that results from rats and mice need to be taken with some skepticism because they have different metabolisms than humans.  I've been amazed at some of the food paranoia I've seen since I've started the diet I'm on.

I've lost around 100 lbs since I started the Atkins diet.  I weighed 350 when I started.  The weight was a combination of genetics, age, food intake and (lack of) exercise.  It was not caused by the evil corn lobby.  The weight loss is due to me taking control of what I eat and how much I exercise.  I won't stay on this low-carb "lifestyle" forever.  I may even stop by Krispy Kreme for one chocolate iced creme filled.



Here we go again...who likes Atkins? Raise your hands...Cut carbs, increase proteins and fats. Fine for the short term, but unrealistic in the common world. Travel the U.S. and see how difficult it can be to follow a low carb diet when you're on the road.



Here is the equation: (Calories in) - (Calories burned) = (net calories)

Now if your net calories are a negative number you will lose weight.

If your net calories are a positive number then you will gain weight.

It does not matter where those calories come from. Can you choose to make healthy calories choices and feel much better than eating high sugar/carb diet ... absolutely.

I fought my whole life trying to find a way around it; there is none. I'm am finally finding success counting my calories in and my calories out and have a sustainable success for the first time in my life. It is nice to try to blame one food group verses another food group, because then you don't have to take responsibility for what you are consuming calories wise. Staying healthy IS about moderation and control and not about a specific food group.



i am not sure what to take from this article, but i am happy that there are so many informed people on cc! the problem with obesity in the unites states is likely due to all the processed food we eat, and too large portion sizes and too much fast food. i have travelled to many other countries, and whole foods are the best weight loss tool for me, its almost impossible to overeat fresh fruit and veggies, lean protein and unprocessed whole grains



The article is not well written.  It focuses exclusively on a conclusion that fructose /  sugar is not to blame, while completely omitting discussion about what "is" to blame.  There are also numerous conclusory statements without factual support.  Additionally, there are important errors within the writing.  For example, the last sentence of the second paragraph should state:   "The review suggests counting carbs is futile if daily caloric intake is NOT in check."  Omission of the word "not" completely confuses the reader and results in a misstated conclusion. 

In summary, I don't give this article much credibility. 



It's not sugar, it's the inability of people to NOT overfeed in the presence of cheap calories.  It's in our evolutionary nature.  You need to use your mind to think about not overeating.  Seriously, the average sedentary person doesn't need to be eating as much as they do.  Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner, snack. It's too much.  Give your body a chance to get out of "storage mode" and tap into all that stored fat energy...

 



Fructose Not to Blame for Weight Gain

Paragraph 3

Turns out multiple studies have found high-fructose corn syrup results in excess weight gain in rats when compared to other sweeteners. One study gave rats a diet with the same amount of calories, but different amounts of HFCS and sucrose. Those on the HFCS diet gained significantly more body weight despite having consumed less calories of HFCS than sucrose. ... However, plasmas lipid profiles were elevated in the fructose and HFCS groups.

Sponsored Links High Fructose Corn Syrup
Is A Sweetener Made From Corn. Get the Scientific Facts At
www.SweetSurprise.com/

This all on the same page. Please remove me from this list. I do not need nutrition "facts" from the HFCS industry.

 




AMEN!



One thing that is not addressed is that sugar (and particularly HFCS ) makes you crave more of the food that contains it. (Is it a coincidence that since HFCS became ubiquitous in our food supply, obesity has become an epidemic??)

I also question the suggestion that it only matters how many calories you eat and not what kind of calories they are.  What about insulin sensitivity and insulin response that is greatly affected by consuming too many simple carbs? 

Like others, I question who funded these "studies" that come to these conclusions.  



Original Post by: joshjamesmosier

AMEN!


Oops, I forgot to hit "quote"....I meant to send and AMEN to the folks who are stating that self control and the ability to limit your calorie intake is the real issue here. Again we are looking for a scapegoat....everyone knows what a healthy diet consists of, yet most don't have the self control to limit themselves.

Don't shift the blame to anything other than our ability to make decisions. Don't blame the smoking gun....someone had to be there to pull the trigger!



When I started loosing weight, I could not give up Dr. Pepper.  I was hooked on it, with 2-3 liters per day.  I found hope in the simple fact that calories burned less calories consumed needs to be a negative, and I could lose weight on a Dr. Pepper diet if I had to.   And basically I did.   I cut out some food to account for the Dr. Pepper and kept drinking, and then gradually decreased to where I do not care for it anymore and do not drink any, but my point is that all the while I was losing weight by following this formula, net calorie intake at the end of the day needs to be a negative no matter where those calories came from.   I agree with the article.



I  find it humorous that the article states fructose doesn't cause weight gain.  Then toward the end of the piece states that it does increase hunger.

Last time I checked, being hungry prompted most people to eat more, which (no brainer) would eventually lead to weight gain.

If you artificially restrict the amount of food, like in a controlled study, then sure, there might not be a weight gain.  But I'm living in the real world and I'm allowed to eat whatever I want.  So I avoid fructose (especially HFCS) because I know it has an effect on my weight, even if it is indirect.

Oh, and it's not "calories in, calories out".  Our bodies metabolize foods differently depending on their composition, at different points in our lives and even at different times of the day.  CICO was based on a closed system, and we're not.

 



It is less what we eat and more about how much. These articles imply that it is horrible to be hungry. Geeze, I can stand to be hungry a while. In fact I make a point of it. It is when I am hungry that I am getting thinner. I try to be hungry a couple hours a day and NEVER over eat.

I gave up soda years ago. I just felt better. Now I see there is cheese everywhere, on everything. Cheese is next to go. But I will not give up bread. Jesus ate bread. It is not the problem. But like sugar...all things in moderation.

Beef is way over done in this nation too. I keep hearing about whole food diets. I want to learn more. I wonder how this fits into a busy life schedule in a secular world.



Original Post by: hobbbs

Here we go again...who likes Atkins? Raise your hands...Cut carbs, increase proteins and fats. Fine for the short term, but unrealistic in the common world. Travel the U.S. and see how difficult it can be to follow a low carb diet when you're on the road.


I couldn't agree with you more!  I love Atkins and while I am at home/work I can follow it to the letter with no problems.  When I'm on the road, for work/training/socializing, it becomes far more difficult!  I can have an iron will at home but at any training I go to, low carb foods are not offered and I don't like having to continuously pack food to maintain my diet.  Especially when the food that IS offered is usually way more fun and delicious than what I'm eating.  And going out with my sisters?? Forget about it!!  Low carbing is impossible!  (Did I say I love Atkins? :) )



Most of you people need to read this article more carefully. Most of your stated objections are addressed, but the findings addressed here seem to violate your religious beliefs so you are overreacting.



Original Post by: chawks64

I  find it humorous that the article states fructose doesn't cause weight gain.  Then toward the end of the piece states that it does increase hunger.

Last time I checked, being hungry prompted most people to eat more, which (no brainer) would eventually lead to weight gain.

If you artificially restrict the amount of food, like in a controlled study, then sure, there might not be a weight gain.  But I'm living in the real world and I'm allowed to eat whatever I want.  So I avoid fructose (especially HFCS) because I know it has an effect on my weight, even if it is indirect.

Oh, and it's not "calories in, calories out".  Our bodies metabolize foods differently depending on their composition, at different points in our lives and even at different times of the day.  CICO was based on a closed system, and we're not.

 


I couldn't agree with you more.  I believe "calories in, calories out" is a high level perspective on weight gain/loss/maint.  I've tried tons of weight loss strategies thoughout my journey, and at one time was encouraged to try Adkin's.  After all, it does work for many...who knows - maybe it would help me as well...

What I found was that due so such carb restriction, I had no energy.  At all.  I couldn't make it up the 3 flights of stairs at the hospital I work w/o losing my breath.  I had no energy to integrate any exercise into my plan either.  I realized that for ME, I could not restrict my carbs in this way and get healthier...it was actually detrimental to my health to do so.  I did however learn which carbs to use.  All carbs are not made nor metabolized the same.  If you eat a twinkie...or a caloric equal of carrots or apples - hmmm they're not going to fuel your body the same.



I dissagree with this article.

My experience in how I lost weight was not eating a high carb diet. ALL carbs, whether from grains, sugar, fruits or anywhere else all add up to Sugar when broken down after eaten. So I need to add up all the carbs I plan to eat to know if I am giving my system a massive amout of carbs (SUGAR). The more carbs you eat the more insulin is produced to process all the those carbs. This IMHO put a awful lot of stress on all the organs trying to process all this sugar. If done for years, I suspect it weakens those organs to the point of failure. Then you possibly become diabetic. Obviously there is more to it than this but the point is, a low carb diet reduces the insulin production and doesn't over stress these organs and therefore you would likely not have a serious problem like diabetes like my mother and mother in law. If one eats a diet of 20-30% protein, 50% good fats and 20-30% good carbs from veggies and a small amount of fruit, and eat nuts and seeds and no dairy or grains of any kind, you will drop weight. Because I gained back 45 lbs of 87 lbs I had lost years ago, from 235 to 148 and to 192 and now to 185, My goal is 160-165 by May 2012. I am losing 2 lbs a week at the current time eating this way. Basically I ate similar in the 70's when I lost the 87 lbs. And the carbs, whether from pure sugar or any other source is the problem. If you want to loose weight, just keep carbs at between 50 and 100 grams per day and you will loose weight. You can loose it faster at the lower range and at times go below 50 but only for a short time like a day or two. I intermittent fast at least once a week too. So try that. Get up in the AM but don't eat until about 1 PM and then do not eat after 7 PM. For snacks I eat a handful of nuts or a hard boiled egg. If you need something sweet, you can use a small amount of Honey (organic). I use shreded coconut, slivered almonds, a few golden raisens and honey and mix it up and eat as a snack. Honey I have read will not spike insulin like sugar does. Last night for dinner we had a small salad with baby lettuce, crumbled feta and pecans, baked Panko Crusted Basa (a fish) light on the Panko and strawberries and blueberries. That was dinner. 2 Eggs & 3 bacon at beakfast. So it's not that hard to do.

Check out    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-primal-bluep rint/#axzz1lN1RfioV

It is what I follow food wise. Or http://thepaleodiet.com/

 

 



I love this topic, heated and full of controversy, but comes down to a good point.  Carbs is good, over stepping your caloric limit is the cause of FAT increase.  Which I seperate from weight gain since I know its possible to gain weight (muscle mass) and lose fat, I'm experiencing it.

Atkins is for sedentary folks who love to eat but dont want to exercise.  People who sit in front of a computer all day and a TV at night.  It works for them don't knock it.  They will suffer other health issues due to lack of activity in the long run.

High Glycemic Index Carbs is great when used properly.  Even diabetic athletes ingest these carbs (includes sucrose, fructose and HFCS) during carb loading before an event.  Check out www.runsweet.com a great resource for the insulin resistant and insulin dependent that would love a high impact active life style.

Counting CARBS is futile if your daily caloric intake is not in check.  For those who dont understand this, its simple.   Why count how many grams of carbs you are eating when your not keeping track of total caloric intake.  For example:  Im not drinking that soda (200 cals) because it has carbs... but I will eat a whole roasted 3lb chicken because I'm on Atkins (2592 cals).  Get the picture.  Then comes the complaint of "why I'm not losing weight, and i don't have the energy to go to the GYM!?!"  *palmface*

In essence this is a subtle hint to Carbophobes to reconsider their diet.  Learn the joy of eating responsibly so you can finally enjoy a slice of New York Style Cheese Cake, my fav.



Everybody is an expert on the way everyone's individual metabolism works.   Simply amazing.  Someone should run out an patent the first weight loss strategy that will inherently work for everyone here...quick now - because no one has been able to do it.

The best we all can offer are things that we've learned...and what we've learned has to do with our own bodies, not anyone elses.  We are ALL biased.  I've learned things, you've learned things.  Everyone needs to piece together an eating/activity regimine that works for them.  And it's not going to look exactly like any one elses.

Figuring out how your body works, and what it NEEDS to run effectively and efficiently IS hard to do.  If it were simple...there would be one "go to" place for all these answers and discussions.  It's not simple, and it's not easy - it takes effort and attention.



I love this topic too Lumox...the carb controversy continues. :)

 



Original Post by: suzystaywell

One thing that is not addressed is that sugar (and particularly HFCS ) makes you crave more of the food that contains it. (Is it a coincidence that since HFCS became ubiquitous in our food supply, obesity has become an epidemic??)

I also question the suggestion that it only matters how many calories you eat and not what kind of calories they are.  What about insulin sensitivity and insulin response that is greatly affected by consuming too many simple carbs? 

Like others, I question who funded these "studies" that come to these conclusions.  


Totally agree with you suzystaywell.  Before doing low a carb diet I could not get to 1800 calories/day.  I was always hungry and could barely tolerate just under 2000 calories/day.  After starting my low carb diet I can routinely eat and be satisfied with 1200-1500 calories/day.  The type of calories makes a big, big difference for me.  I have lost over 170lbs since then.  Eating carbs just made me hungry more often.



Original Post by: masoneil

Here is the equation: (Calories in) - (Calories burned) = (net calories)

Now if your net calories are a negative number you will lose weight.

If your net calories are a positive number then you will gain weight.

It does not matter where those calories come from. Can you choose to make healthy calories choices and feel much better than eating high sugar/carb diet ... absolutely.

I fought my whole life trying to find a way around it; there is none. I'm am finally finding success counting my calories in and my calories out and have a sustainable success for the first time in my life. It is nice to try to blame one food group verses another food group, because then you don't have to take responsibility for what you are consuming calories wise. Staying healthy IS about moderation and control and not about a specific food group.


I totally agree with this.  I am trying to watch portion sizes and calories.  I eat what I want. Just in moderation.  That way I do not feel deprived of anything.  I plan on loosing only 1 pound a week.  That way I am changing my life style and not just crash dieting. :)



The opening paragraph is factually unsupported.  It can't say that HFCS is not to blame for obesity in this country based on this study.  Sure, when you control the calorie intake of the participants, they won't gain weight, but no one is doing this for every citizen. People don't live in a controlled conditions; people don't live in an experiment.

It even mentions that HFCS accounts for on average about 300 calories of the daily calorie consumption.  Since this is only the average, there are a good amount of people consuming considerably more than this.  Eliminating these calories virtually has no side effects since they are nutritionally void.  If we do so, the individual can then expect to lose weight at a rate of one-half to one pound per week.  That is monumental. 

This also doesn't take into account what effect the extra hunger is having on consumption.  One of the biggest factors of a diets success is whether the participant can stick with the program (i.e. it is a long-term solution).  When you have a substance that causes hunger and the participant is not 'allowed' to eat, you have an unnecessary conflict. This is why you have people saying that in order to lose weight, you must perpetually be hungry.  This is not the case. 

While you could say that there are many causes to obesity, and HFCS is not capable of causing it by itself, it doesn't mean that we wouldn't benefit by eliminating it from our diets.  When improving one's diet, the first words of advice tend to be to curb added sugar intake.  If this is true, it is absurd to then say that it deserves no blame. 



Comment Removed

HCFS decreases/stops the natural enzyme that makes you feel full... so it never 'registers' in your brain that you have eatten... so your brain never signals you that you have had 'enough'...

Once again... man-made artificial sweetners (and I KNOW HFCS comes from corn, which is made by God (duh! lol)... but I'm tellin' ya... HFCS is straight from the devil! lol)... You can fool the tongue (sometimes!)... but you can't fool the brain!!



Comment Removed

Original Post by: anginwi

Original Post by: chawks64

I  find it humorous that the article states fructose doesn't cause weight gain.  Then toward the end of the piece states that it does increase hunger.

Last time I checked, being hungry prompted most people to eat more, which (no brainer) would eventually lead to weight gain.

If you artificially restrict the amount of food, like in a controlled study, then sure, there might not be a weight gain.  But I'm living in the real world and I'm allowed to eat whatever I want.  So I avoid fructose (especially HFCS) because I know it has an effect on my weight, even if it is indirect.

Oh, and it's not "calories in, calories out".  Our bodies metabolize foods differently depending on their composition, at different points in our lives and even at different times of the day.  CICO was based on a closed system, and we're not.

 


I couldn't agree with you more.  I believe "calories in, calories out" is a high level perspective on weight gain/loss/maint.  I've tried tons of weight loss strategies thoughout my journey, and at one time was encouraged to try Adkin's.  After all, it does work for many...who knows - maybe it would help me as well...

What I found was that due so such carb restriction, I had no energy.  At all.  I couldn't make it up the 3 flights of stairs at the hospital I work w/o losing my breath.  I had no energy to integrate any exercise into my plan either.  I realized that for ME, I could not restrict my carbs in this way and get healthier...it was actually detrimental to my health to do so.  I did however learn which carbs to use.  All carbs are not made nor metabolized the same.  If you eat a twinkie...or a caloric equal of carrots or apples - hmmm they're not going to fuel your body the same.


You are the first person I have EVER heard say that you have no energy on low carb besides me!!  I am so relieved to hear another person say that, I can't tell you.  I feel not one ounce of energy when I low carb it.  I want to exercise more, and be better at it, but my body just won't or can't do it!  I've kind of been brainwashed about low carb tho and am afraid to raise my carb levels for fear that I will gain weight that I worked so hard to lose.  I've just got to wrap my head around being sensible with the types of carbs I eat and how much I eat.



Original Post by: biglumox

I love this topic, heated and full of controversy, but comes down to a good point.  Carbs is good, over stepping your caloric limit is the cause of FAT increase.  Which I seperate from weight gain since I know its possible to gain weight (muscle mass) and lose fat, I'm experiencing it.

Atkins is for sedentary folks who love to eat but dont want to exercise.  People who sit in front of a computer all day and a TV at night.  It works for them don't knock it.  They will suffer other health issues due to lack of activity in the long run.

High Glycemic Index Carbs is great when used properly.  Even diabetic athletes ingest these carbs (includes sucrose, fructose and HFCS) during carb loading before an event.  Check out www.runsweet.com a great resource for the insulin resistant and insulin dependent that would love a high impact active life style.

Counting CARBS is futile if your daily caloric intake is not in check.  For those who dont understand this, its simple.   Why count how many grams of carbs you are eating when your not keeping track of total caloric intake.  For example:  Im not drinking that soda (200 cals) because it has carbs... but I will eat a whole roasted 3lb chicken because I'm on Atkins (2592 cals).  Get the picture.  Then comes the complaint of "why I'm not losing weight, and i don't have the energy to go to the GYM!?!"  *palmface*

In essence this is a subtle hint to Carbophobes to reconsider their diet.  Learn the joy of eating responsibly so you can finally enjoy a slice of New York Style Cheese Cake, my fav.


I think I love you.  (I am a recovering carbophobe) :)



Ummmmm did ya'll read the same article I did? It clearly said that in the rat experiment, those that consumed HFCS and fructose gained more weight than those that consumed sucrose. Fructose, because of its different shape, is metabolized slightly differently than sucrose, or even glucose. Structure determines function. It's a fundamental chemical principle. So, if the author of this article clearly noted that HFCS might be a trigger for weight gain in people as well as rats, HOW ON EARTH could you think that it was influenced by corn lobbyists???

On the topic of low-carb diets... The article never said that eliminating carbs is the best way to lose weight. That's insanity, and we all know it. It works for short term, but as a long-term lifestyle, it's simply unreasonable. What the article ACTUALLY said was simply that cutting down sugars and replacing those calories with protein and fat could keep you satisfied so you don't end up eating as much calories in the long run.

Stop being so defensive, and quit attacking people. The job of this site is to provide information; whether or not you agree with the information is your choice. If you think you know more, provide researched information to the contrary, but do not attack the author. It's rude, and it makes you seem really, really immature.



Calorie for calorie I agree there may not be any differents between sugars and HFCS.... BUT!  When I eat something with HFCS (such as bread) it triggers my appetite for more food and especially jumk foods loaded with sugars and carbs,  and that craving goes on for 2-3 days after I force myself to read all labels and get it back out of my diet.  I liken it to nicatine in cigarettes.  I can enjoy a home made cookie and walk away after 1-2, but if I eat one that has HFCS I'm hooked and will not stop until the whole package is eaten.  The worst part is going out to eat.  It is in everything.  Last December we enjoyed breakfast at a small diner and I had a slice of their bread.  Within 2 hours I had the worse headache ever and wanted ice cream!  I agree with some of the others that it is very hard to find food that is not alter genetically and between HFCS and fake butters, I can't go out to eat without getting sick.  For us oldies, we can remember when "doctors recommended cigarettes"!  Someday they will band of HFCS, I just hope it is sooner than later.



I think we all know the true reason for weight gain, too many calories.  If you eat too many calories, you will gain weight regardless of the food.  I don't believe in the carb counting since you can over eat meat and gain weight.  There probably is something to the whole craving thing when you eat more simple carbs.  I know I don't feel well when I eat the refined stuff and have a tendency to be feel more hunger.  With the high fiber carbs I feel much better and am able to curb my cravings and tendency to overeat even the, "Good," foods. 



Original Post by: masoneil

Here is the equation: (Calories in) - (Calories burned) = (net calories)

Now if your net calories are a negative number you will lose weight.

If your net calories are a positive number then you will gain weight.

It does not matter where those calories come from. Can you choose to make healthy calories choices and feel much better than eating high sugar/carb diet ... absolutely.

I fought my whole life trying to find a way around it; there is none. I'm am finally finding success counting my calories in and my calories out and have a sustainable success for the first time in my life. It is nice to try to blame one food group verses another food group, because then you don't have to take responsibility for what you are consuming calories wise. Staying healthy IS about moderation and control and not about a specific food group.


THANK YOU! Finally someone who gets it! It's so frustrating to read the comments that state certain foods are the devil... truly, balance and moderation is the key. Laughing



Having lived in Europe, where I was at my slimmest ever, I can say from experience that besides sugar many other factors play into this equation. One, most people here have abandoned eating at a "table". Hence, we have sofas, cars and drive-thru eating, which are alien on the Continent. Two, the big meal of the day is lunch, stretched out over 2+ hours, again, on a table.  And last, Europe has stricter food inspection and regulations regarding Frankenfoods.

Also, most Europeans don't snack and don't eat on the street or on the run. This is totally an American phenomenon. Couple that with lots of walking, cycling and plain old 'hobbies' and perhaps a passion for academics, it's no wonder our friends across the Atlantic don't look like mastodons as many teens and adults do here in the US.



This has probably been said, but the ONLY reason people think fructose is a good sugar is because it does not (appear to) impact blood glucose, so it has a low glycemic index. That is all well and good IF you are eating WHOLE fruit, not so good if you are eating sweetened, fiber-free juices or other foods. Fructose is processed by the liver, that is why it does not seem to affect the bloog glucose levels. 



This is the worst article I have ever read on CC.  Very misleading.



According to a medical journalists' book I just finished, "Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics Division of Endocrinology, who treats obese children and adolescents and gave a lecture Sugar: the bitter truth, fructose is metabolized in the liver and is highly toxic and detrimental to the body and causes obesity among many other problems.  He claims fructose is equivalent to ethanol and sugar works like cocaine in the way it is metabolized. In fact, the chemical make up of cocaine and sugar is amazingly similar. Check it out. Lustig on uTube and Taubes book at the library.



There has to be a diference between hunger and craving.  good foods seem to satisfy my hunger and I can control my caloric intake.  problem is sometimes a craving gets involved. it's usually for something high in sugar. not the sugar that any fruit or vegetable could satisfy.  its hard to ignore and hard to satisfy.  I guit smoking years ago. it was very hard to do. I think there is the same kind of addiction craving happening with certain foods and the ingredient lable seems to point at hfcs being the common factor.   It took time to finnaly rid my mind from ever craving a cigarett and I think it will take time to rid my mind form craving the sugar problem foods.  but I think the only way that is going to happen is to stop eating them...ever...just like quiting smoking.



Original Post by: suzette_5772

According to a medical journalists' book I just finished, "Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics Division of Endocrinology, who treats obese children and adolescents and gave a lecture Sugar: the bitter truth, fructose is metabolized in the liver and is highly toxic and detrimental to the body and causes obesity among many other problems.  He claims fructose is equivalent to ethanol and sugar works like cocaine in the way it is metabolized. In fact, the chemical make up of cocaine and sugar is amazingly similar. Check it out. Lustig on uTube and Taubes book at the library.


God bless you Suzette on a great achievement!!! I tackled that book and it really woke me up. Plain old research, science and cold facts, no diet agenda or product line. Gary should get a Nobel, in my humble opinion. Read "Sugar Blues". Just as shocking!!!



YES!!! Why don't people check out the facts for themselves?  We in the US have been lied to. Fructose sells food and is cheap when exporting food to other countries. I am addicted to sugar and when young could eat anything and lots of it and not gain a pound. I remained 104 lbs until menopause then that began to change. I have gained 15 lbs that doesn't want to come off. Now I know why. It's really hard to give up my life long affair with sweets.  :(   I know I must. I also read fat doesn't make us fat. Sugar does. In fact, good fat is essential to our body.  Omeg-3, NOT omega-6. 



What they fail to tell you in this badly written and bias article is what sugar does to your body.  Sugar increases your insulin levels which holds fat in the cells meaning you can only use the sugar for energy and not the fat you are trying to lose.  This leads to insulin intolerance, no wonder the American and other countries have an obesity problem.  So until governments get their act together and think about the health of there countries and give some good advice we will have to just research it for ourselves.



They won't because there's money, lots of it, to be had by promoting their lie. Think of your supermarket. How hard is to find food without fructose, sugar and everything that ends with "ose". Glucose, sucrose, dextrose, etc.  Remember when Entemans first came out? Wow!  Fat free food! People went nuts.  Primary ingredient, sugars.  The EBT card for people is epidemic. Ever check what most have in their baskarts? Carbs and sugary junk food.



I just don't agree with the position stated in this article. It is too narrowly focused. Sure, it's possible if you compare a diet of fructose to non-fructose (keeping calories constant) you will not see a difference in weight gain. However, it's the appetite changes that are caused by eating carbohydrates and sugary snacks that causes weight gain. I read somewhere about how the amount of carbohydrates eaten in America has significantly increased over the years. We have become an obese country by adding unnecessary snack foods that are sugar/carbohydrate loaded.

The first paragraph of this article is pure garbage. The sweet tooth is one of the leading reasons for the obesity epidemic in this country. Further, if those 282(children) and 362(adolescent) calories from sugar are in excess of their maintenance calories this will equate to approximately 30 and 38 lbs weight gain per year respectively. Not to mention that this is setting a terrible habit for adulthood.

Sugar is addictive. Food companies do research to make sure that their food is as addictive as possible. The two work hand in hand.

 



Wow!! All you conspiracy theorists out there, put on your foil hats. First of all, there's a theme here. Yesterday's article points out the value of counting calories. This article point out that the research doesn't support that the intake of HFCS on its own cannot be blamed for the rise in obesity. Calories are calories and if you don't restrict them you can end up with obesity.

The article goes in to say that HFCS does increase your appetite. But guess what? All simple sugars have the same effect. The author didn't go into the mechanism that causes that phenomenon: rapid insulin spikes after ingestion of simple sugars increases the sensation of hunger and may cause people to over eat. So what? She didn't right pages and pages of technical jargon that would put most people to sleep. The take home message would be the same: count calories and have a balanced diet.

Let's say for the sake of argument the author made a mistake. There is nothing in that article that be grounds to fire anybody. For the people out there screaming for blood. Go back to doing your own job properly and stop obsessing about blogs.


With all due respect, we who oppose the article are not out for blood. We are against the agenda of our government for pushing false advertising and convincing the population in general of believing a lie. Sugar in any disguise is harmful to us. Carbs equal sugar when they break down. Sugar raises insulin, etc. That's all.  Cool

 



Original Post by: yarper

Ummmmm did ya'll read the same article I did? It clearly said that in the rat experiment, those that consumed HFCS and fructose gained more weight than those that consumed sucrose. Fructose, because of its different shape, is metabolized slightly differently than sucrose, or even glucose. Structure determines function. It's a fundamental chemical principle. So, if the author of this article clearly noted that HFCS might be a trigger for weight gain in people as well as rats, HOW ON EARTH could you think that it was influenced by corn lobbyists???

On the topic of low-carb diets... The article never said that eliminating carbs is the best way to lose weight. That's insanity, and we all know it. It works for short term, but as a long-term lifestyle, it's simply unreasonable. What the article ACTUALLY said was simply that cutting down sugars and replacing those calories with protein and fat could keep you satisfied so you don't end up eating as much calories in the long run.

Stop being so defensive, and quit attacking people. The job of this site is to provide information; whether or not you agree with the information is your choice. If you think you know more, provide researched information to the contrary, but do not attack the author. It's rude, and it makes you seem really, really immature.


THANK YOU! This is exactly what I was thinking throughout reading most of those comments! I think most of the commentators on here just read the title and decided to give their two cents without reading the rest of the article.

As you point out, she states that in rats, HFCS DOES cause weight gain in rats with equal calorie intake! People are getting hung up on the fact that in studies on other types of sugar, the composition of the diet didn't matter as long as total calories stayed the same. 

As for this quote: "The review suggests counting carbs is futile if daily caloric intake is in check," the writer is spot-on. According to THIS REVIEW that is covered by the article, your diet can be all-carbs or no carbs and as long as daily caloric intake stays the same, it won't affect your weight (except, as noted, for HFCS - but, as she mentions, that's not covered by the review she's writing about, which is why she brought it up.)

Which brings me to my final point. Several people have complained about the scope of the article not being broad enough. She's not writing a book here!!! She's summarizing one single review - that's the entire scope of the article! In fact, she goes above and beyond the assignment to point out the dangers of HFCS, which were not included in the review she's covering, and to point out that the reason to banish sugars from your diet is an issue of appetite control, rather than metabolism or anything else. If you eat more sugars, you won't feel full and you'll be driven to eat more, and thus INCREASING YOUR TOTAL CALORIC INTAKE. In that sense, sugars could very well be blamed for the obesity epidemic: because people consume too many empty calories, they overeat. But once again, that's not covered in the review that is the topic of this article. Hence, again, why she points it out. 

So, to the haters, please stop bashing the author for what is in fact a very well-written and fleshed out article. Stop getting hung up on a few words and sentences, go back and read the whole thing, and you'll find that the very things you're bashing her for are actually covered in the article, and that the author actually AGREES with your point of view. She's not defending sugar at all! She's actually encouraging people to eat less of it, especially HFCS! ONE STUDY found that the COMPOSITION OF CARBS in one's diet DOESN'T AFFECT weight loss or gain when TOTAL CALORIC CONSUMPTION STAYS THE SAME. That's it! That's the point of the article! And it's not even the author saying it - it's the study that she's summarizing! The author's point of view is that the danger of eating too much sugar lies in INCREASING TOTAL CALORIC CONSUMPTION because it doesn't suppress appetite! To her, SUGAR IS BAD!!! PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before calling for someone's dismissal - that is just BEYOND rude! 

Okay, rant over. :)



When I saw the topic, I rushed to see what blood bath would ensue, and boy I was right.  We are hot on this topic.  I primarily agree that added sugar in all forms is unnecessary and we are just so used to sweets in all forms that we have to be weeded off of it like cigerettes or other drugs.  I am just questioning the title, because by its tone, it seems to say that fructose is harmless.  It is not, it is one of many additives we could do without.  I mean really, look at catsup, we pretty much dump sugar on our fries everyday, and think nothing of it.  It is in EVERYTHING, it is known that societies that have a high processed sugar intake are significantly more prone to diabetes than societies that have little or no processed sugar.  Even micro societies, the amish and such, are known to be prone to this, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.  Let's use a little common sense.



Post Your Comment

Join Calorie Count - it's easy and free!
CREATE FREE ACCOUNT
Advertisement
Advertisement
Allergy Remedies
Is It Possible to Go Natural?
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.