PDA

View Full Version : Table Sugar vs. Complex Carbs



Darcy Tucker
07-27-2006, 05:39 PM
I'm very curious by nature and have always wanted to know the answer to this question.

If the same person is eating 2000 calories (200 calories under maintenance) and is eating 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight and the rest of his calories are coming from table sugar..........will he lose weight at the same rate as if he was eating the same amount of protein but got the rest of his calories from complex carbs.

I realize that by eating table sugar he will probably feel like crap and have crazy hunger pains, but will they lose weight the exact same way?

Paladyr
07-27-2006, 07:06 PM
The person eating complex carbs will lose more weight b/c the table sugar causes a spike in insulin which increases fat storage.

WORLD
07-27-2006, 07:14 PM
The person eating complex carbs will lose more weight b/c the table sugar causes a spike in insulin which increases fat storage.
:withstupi

Darcy Tucker
07-27-2006, 07:17 PM
You guys quite positive?

Paladyr
07-27-2006, 07:24 PM
You guys quite positive?

100%. I know it sucks. It doesn't keep me from eating the occasional sweets though, especially after a workout.

When in doubt, you're your own best test subject! hehe. Try it out for yourself, I'd be interested to see what happens. Just eat your protein normally, but get all your carbs from simple sugars and see what happens. Then when you get to a point where you can't lose any more weight at say 2000 calories, switch all your carbs to complex and see if your weight drops some more!

Built
07-27-2006, 07:30 PM
Paladyr, how are you so sure? I'm not at ALL sure of this.

Stray
07-27-2006, 07:54 PM
The age old discussion of "Is a calorie really just a calorie"...such as would a guy eating 1800 calories in twinkies lose weight or not.:scratch:

Unreal
07-28-2006, 07:27 AM
The person eating complex carbs will lose more weight b/c the table sugar causes a spike in insulin which increases fat storage.

If there was excess calories to store as fat, but since at the end of the day your still 200 under maintence. So if your 200 cals under your going to lose weight, now if the insulin spiking effect causes you to lose more muscle instead of fat is the question.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 08:07 AM
Paladyr, how are you so sure? I'm not at ALL sure of this.

From what I've read and my own experiences...

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2005/09/insulin-fat-storage-fat-use-for-energy.html

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 08:21 AM
If there was excess calories to store as fat, but since at the end of the day your still 200 under maintence. So if your 200 cals under your going to lose weight, now if the insulin spiking effect causes you to lose more muscle instead of fat is the question.

Not necessarily.

Say someone eats 50g of sugar. That causes a spike in insulin, and as a result, the body thinks it's getting plenty of food and stores say 20g of that as fat.

If they had eaten 50g of complex carbs, insulin would not have spiked, the food would have digested slower, and the body would allow more of it to be used for energy instead of storing it as fat.

Like I said, this is what I've read and experienced in my own diet... feel free to try it out on your own eating nothing but sweets and report your findings... I'm all ears... but i've never found a scientific study that concludes "carbs are carbs" when it comes to dieting. Everything I've read indicates what I described above.

In my own experience, I have tried to diet while eating too many sweets and not only do I not lose as much weight as I should, but after I come down off my sugar high, I feel tired and lethargic. My metabolism can't be at a normal level when this happens, so I'm buring less calories just sitting around doing nothing!

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 08:31 AM
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/53/60634.htm

"But high-protein diets help people lose weight because they are based partially on science, which is what makes them seductive. The high-protein advocates are right when they say that people in the United States eat too many simple carbohydrates like sugar, white flour, and white rice. These foods are absorbed quickly, causing blood sugar to spike, which in turn provokes an insulin response that accelerates the conversion of calories to fat. There is a clear benefit to reducing the intake of simple carbohydrates, especially to people who are sensitive to them.

So the diagnosis is correct: we are eating too many simple carbohydrates. But the cure is wrong. The solution is not to go from simple carbohydrates to pork rinds and bacon, but from simple carbohydrates to whole foods with complex carbohydrates like whole wheat, brown rice, and fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes in their natural forms. "

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 11:20 AM
Say someone eats 50g of sugar. That causes a spike in insulin, and as a result, the body thinks it's getting plenty of food and stores say 20g of that as fat.
This is wrong on so many counts.


Paladyr, make absolutely sure you know the basic biochecmical foundations of energy metabolism before you try to argue this one out.


If they had eaten 50g of complex carbs, insulin would not have spiked, the food would have digested slower, and the body would allow more of it to be used for energy instead of storing it as fat.
This is innacurate as well.

ddegroff
07-28-2006, 12:23 PM
100%. I know it sucks. It doesn't keep me from eating the occasional sweets though, especially after a workout.

When in doubt, you're your own best test subject! hehe. Try it out for yourself, I'd be interested to see what happens. Just eat your protein normally, but get all your carbs from simple sugars and see what happens. Then when you get to a point where you can't lose any more weight at say 2000 calories, switch all your carbs to complex and see if your weight drops some more!


Thats a pretty strong statement, being 100%. I looked over the "articles" you posted, not quite the best sources (interview w/ Ornish who has a fad diet). Can you find anything that applies to strength athletes? not the average joe who is eating too many simple sugars and over eating.

Insulin is your storage hormone, it doesn't just store fat.

What if I took all my CHO's around my workout, spikes my insulin, would all that go to fat?

Now if one was to consume all their CHO's in Table sugar (glucose/fructose) vs. Dex, what would the out come be? different or still fat gain?

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 12:30 PM
Okay then why are sugar cookies not listed on the "clean" bodybuilding grocery list? How about anything with tons of sugar?

All I'm saying is that all of the evidence I have read as well as my own personal experience points to what I believe. Until someone can show me something that disproves it, I'll continue believing.

I have yet to see a single source or link to anyone saying otherwise.... Please, I'm begging one of you to try it for yourself. If you are on a cut, switch to nothing but sweets but keep your cals where you want them to be and see what happens. I would love to have someone disprove me and what the doctors I have linked to said.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 12:30 PM
Thats a pretty strong statement, being 100%. I looked over the "articles" you posted, not quite the best sources (interview w/ Ornish who has a fad diet). Can you find anything that applies to strength athletes? not the average joe who is eating too many simple sugars and over eating.

Insulin is your storage hormone, it doesn't just store fat.

What if I took all my CHO's around my workout, spikes my insulin, would all that go to fat?

Now if one was to consume all their CHO's in Table sugar (glucose/fructose) vs. Dex, what would the out come be? different or still fat gain?

He doesn't have a "fad" diet FYI. He doesn't even appear to be selling anything.

Honestly I'm done proving myself until someone can post anything that counters the information I've provided....

ddegroff
07-28-2006, 12:44 PM
I consider anything thats not well balanced "fad", because yeah it works but its not the best for everyone. Or doesn't continue to work. Ornish's diet is more based for people who have CVD by eating super low fat (which we know isn't always the answer).

I really only have a problem with you saying your 100% convinced that this is true. You haven't really linked any good evidence that proves your point either. What works for you probably wont work for me or others.

Food for thought:
http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/703

Insulin sensitive vs. Insulin resistance over weight women

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 02:02 PM
He doesn't have a "fad" diet FYI. He doesn't even appear to be selling anything.

Honestly I'm done proving myself until someone can post anything that counters the information I've provided....
Well, nothing you have said or provided proves anything about the specific question asked.

If you have anything posted on this forum regarding carbohydrates within the past year, some of this should be explained for you already.

The only thing you have addressed is insulin.

My first question: out of your 50 gram example of table sugar(sucrose) how much of that requires insulin once it passes the liver?

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 02:56 PM
Someone please try it, because I would love nothing more to be eating soft batch cookies when I am trying to slim down.

I forgot about the insane egos here, so what I should of said was that I'm 100% positive this is the case for me.

I've actually tried it, have any of you??? That in itself is better proof than anything you guys have posted.

Please get on that ASAP and report back, I'd love to hear what happened. As I said, if someone can prove me wrong I will gladly change my mind!

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 03:02 PM
Someone please try it, because I would love nothing more to be eating soft batch cookies when I am trying to slim down.

I forgot about the insane egos here, so what I should of said was that I'm 100% positive this is the case for me.

I've actually tried it, have any of you??? That in itself is better proof than anything you guys have posted.

Please get on that ASAP and report back, I'd love to hear what happened. As I said, if someone can prove me wrong I will gladly change my mind!
The question is regarding sucrose, not cookies or any other form of sweets.

Ignoring this completely negates your "proof" and personal experience, as I am guessing whatever diet you were following did not exactly fall within the parameters of what we are actually talking about.

Also, why don't you address my questions rather than getting defensive.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 03:13 PM
It also says it in this article:

http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=227

"Spiking your insulin levels all day long will just make you fat and tired. Spike them at the right times and you will increase the uptake of valuable nutrients inside your muscle cells when they are needed most."

Sugar cookies are full of simple sugars, which are high GI foods, that's why I mentioned them. And you are saying that calories are calories so what does it matter what exact food we are talking about? For this argument it doesn't matter at all.

Really, I just don't have the energy to carry this on. Believe what you want, I honestly don't care. Until someone can disprove it, I'm going to go with the dr and my own findings and control my insulin levels.

To the OP: Go ahead and try it and report back your findings!

Built
07-28-2006, 03:17 PM
I forgot about the insane egos here, so what I should of said was that I'm 100% positive this is the case for me.

I've actually tried it, have any of you??? That in itself is better proof than anything you guys have posted.

How? Did you weigh your food, track your calories, and find that on the exact same calorie-deficit, you gained on sugar but lost on no-sugar?

And if by "insane egos here" you mean "scientific minds who require peer-reviewed journal support for otherwise unsubstantiated claims" then I hope you mean me, too. ;)

Built
07-28-2006, 03:19 PM
"Spiking your insulin levels all day long will just make you fat and tired."

This is only true for uncontrolled caloric intake. If you're limiting your calories, it'll just make you freakishly hungry, and tired.

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 03:20 PM
It also says it in this article:

http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=227

"Spiking your insulin levels all day long will just make you fat and tired. Spike them at the right times and you will increase the uptake of valuable nutrients inside your muscle cells when they are needed most."

Sugar cookies are full of simple sugars, which are high GI foods, that's why I mentioned them. And you are saying that calories are calories so what does it matter what exact food we are talking about? For this argument it doesn't matter at all.

Really, I just don't have the energy to carry this on. Believe what you want, I honestly don't care. Until someone can disprove it, I'm going to go with the dr and my own findings and control my insulin levels.

To the OP: Go ahead and try it and report back your findings!
lol

There's not really an argument here on my part because you don't even understand basic food chemistry, much less the actual question asked.

I never established a "belief" is this series of posts.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 03:52 PM
"Spiking your insulin levels all day long will just make you fat and tired."

This is only true for uncontrolled caloric intake. If you're limiting your calories, it'll just make you freakishly hungry, and tired.

I counted my calories while still consuming simple sugars regularly, and when weight loss stalled, kept the calories the same but switched to more complex carbs and a lot less simple sugars and started losing again.

I've posted links to doctors agreeing with what I'm saying... I don't know how that can be considered "unsubstantiated." When I said insane egos I meant it.

I don't see any volunteers to try this out? What's up??? If you are a "scientific mind" you would certainly be interested in doing this....

Built
07-28-2006, 03:57 PM
I have two science degrees in research areas. I'm also insulin resistant, having spent about 20 years fighting a losing battle with my weight, culminating in a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome and a prescription for Metformin, which didn't work. I got my life back when I dropped my carbs, but it wasn't the carbs that were making me fat - it was the carbs making me hungry, and therefore overeat, that caused the problems.

Show me your data.

Unreal
07-28-2006, 04:03 PM
There are down sides to doing it, but I don't believe slower weight loss will be one. Now if you can actualy control your hunger and keep full using table sugar instead of brocolli then at the end of the day, I don't how you can lose more weight since its just simple thermodynamics.

SwoleSam
07-28-2006, 04:04 PM
I'm not leaning towards any side of the argument, but man, I would love to see someone get shredded from table sugar

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 04:13 PM
I have two science degrees in research areas. I'm also insulin resistant, having spent about 20 years fighting a losing battle with my weight, culminating in a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome and a prescription for Metformin, which didn't work. I got my life back when I dropped my carbs, but it wasn't the carbs that were making me fat - it was the carbs making me hungry, and therefore overeat, that caused the problems.

Show me your data.

I know you are very smart built. I'm very sorry to say that I did not know about fitday when I attempted this so the data is on some pieces of paper
god only knows where. I wouldn't defend my position if I hadn't tried it myself.

I found this though:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11093293&dopt=Abstract

"Body weight loss in the low-fat high simple carbohydrate and low-fat high complex carbohydrate groups was 0.9 kg (P < 0.05) and 1.8 kg (P < 0.001)"

"Fat mass changed by -1.3kg (P< 0.01), -1.8kg (P< 0.001) and +0.6kg (NS) in the low-fat high simple carbohydrate, low-fat high complex carbohydrate and control diet groups, respectively."

The study apparently shows that the simple carbohydrate group lost less weight, albeit not a big difference, but still a difference.

Like I mentioned earlier, I didn't switch to complex carbs until after I stalled when dieting on simple sugars. So maybe it only makes a significant difference once you get to a certain body fat %. I didn't lose a LOT of extra weight after I switch... so I'm sure you could diet with simple sugars as long as you keep your calories in control, it's just that I don't *think* you will be able to lose as much as if you were eating more complex carbs.

JustLost
07-28-2006, 04:38 PM
Well, nothing you have said or provided proves anything about the specific question asked.



You mean "Okay then why are sugar cookies not listed on the "clean" bodybuilding grocery list?" didn't convince you?



;)

JustLost
07-28-2006, 04:41 PM
There are down sides to doing it, but I don't believe slower weight loss will be one. Now if you can actualy control your hunger and keep full using table sugar instead of brocolli then at the end of the day, I don't how you can lose more weight since its just simple thermodynamics.


Agreed. In practice, compliance would be the problem. A cookie just makes me want more cookies.

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 04:47 PM
so I'm sure you could diet with simple sugars as long as you keep your calories in control, it's just that I don't *think* you will be able to lose as much as if you were eating more complex carbs.
So you are not "100% sure" then?

Sorry, that must have been my insane WBB ego kicking in.


I can't compare to Built's credentials because my insane ego is too large.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 04:53 PM
So you are not "100% sure" then?

Sorry, that must have been my insane WBB ego kicking in.


I can't compare to Built's credentials because my insane ego is too large.

I'm 100% sure for me, as I stated.

You're really the only one I'm talking about when I say "insane ego." Built is just sarcastic.

vhx1
07-28-2006, 05:01 PM
correlation doesn't not imply causation

Built
07-28-2006, 05:05 PM
I know you are very smart built. I'm very sorry to say that I did not know about fitday when I attempted this so the data is on some pieces of paper
god only knows where. I wouldn't defend my position if I hadn't tried it myself.

I found this though:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11093293&dopt=Abstract

"Body weight loss in the low-fat high simple carbohydrate and low-fat high complex carbohydrate groups was 0.9 kg (P < 0.05) and 1.8 kg (P < 0.001)"

"Fat mass changed by -1.3kg (P< 0.01), -1.8kg (P< 0.001) and +0.6kg (NS) in the low-fat high simple carbohydrate, low-fat high complex carbohydrate and control diet groups, respectively."

The study apparently shows that the simple carbohydrate group lost less weight, albeit not a big difference, but still a difference.

Like I mentioned earlier, I didn't switch to complex carbs until after I stalled when dieting on simple sugars. So maybe it only makes a significant difference once you get to a certain body fat %. I didn't lose a LOT of extra weight after I switch... so I'm sure you could diet with simple sugars as long as you keep your calories in control, it's just that I don't *think* you will be able to lose as much as if you were eating more complex carbs.

There are more than a few problems with how you're using this report.

For one, there is no indication of group sizes (only the total population size, which was 398 moderately obese subjects), so we can't assess for ourselves statistical differences between the treatment groups. Now, there were four treatment groups, so it's probably reasonable to assume approximately 100 individuals in each, but that's all we can do, assume.

Furthermore, the subjects were all moderately obese, not athletes, and most certainly, not lifting weights in any noteworthy capacity.

The average weight lost over a six month period for the two low-fat groups was 0.9kg and 1.8kg respectively - not a HUGE weight loss by any definition - roughly a 40 calorie to 80 calorie a day deficit.

The experimenters themselves concluded as follows: "Our findings suggest that reduction of fat intake results in a modest but significant reduction in body weight and body fatness. The concomitant increase in either simple or complex carbohydrates did not indicate significant differences in weight change. " - in other words, while there was a small difference between the amounts lost in the simple vs complex carb groups, the between-group difference was not considered statistically significant. In fact, the only conclusion the study finds is that lower fat diets tend to promote weight/fat loss.

The biggest problem with this study is that there is no indication of how caloric intake was regulated - in fact, it does not appear to have been regulated at all. My suspicion is that hunger was lower and compliance was higher in the complex carb group than in the simple carb group - and I speak from experience here, having suffered excruciating hunger on simple carbs back in my low-fat days. These people were not locked in cages and fed controlled diets. This, unfortunately, is the only way to absolutely know the answer to this question, and sadly, this kind of study is considered "unethical" by Journal review committees.

Bastardini.

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 05:10 PM
I'm 100% sure for me, as I stated.

You're really the only one I'm talking about when I say "insane ego." Built is just sarcastic.
I'd curious to know why you think that.

I simply asked you questions (which you still haven't answered) and stated that I do not feel you know enough to fully argue this out on a metabolic level. (I make that assumption based on content of your post) Don't take it too personally.

If you really knew me I am far from having a cocky insane ego.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 05:46 PM
I'd curious to know why you think that.

I simply asked you questions (which you still haven't answered) and stated that I do not feel you know enough to fully argue this out on a metabolic level. (I make that assumption based on content of your post) Don't take it too personally.

If you really knew me I am far from having a cocky insane ego.

I got that impression when you posted your replies that simply stated:

"this is wrong"

With nothing to back it up...

Forgive the generalization, but I think it was a poor response. I didn't respond to everything you posted b/c quite honestly I don't want to take the time to do it. I feel like I've provided enough evidence to back up what I'm saying. If you don't feel that way, that's fine.

Anyway like I said, the best way to find out if it's true is to try it yourself. I have and I shared my results, which happens to match the advice given everywhere I've looked....

Built
07-28-2006, 05:53 PM
Paladyr, your results without data are at best anecdotal. You didn't describe any part of your methodology - did you weigh your food? How did you test bodyweight? Bodyfat? What were your data? What was your exercise regimen during these periods?

When Slim and I post up counterarguments, we can back them up with peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and citations from course textbooks. In fact, Slim is so well-versed in this area, I recently consulted with him on an article I wrote. His knowledge of carbohydrate metabolism is among the best you'll see on this board.

Anecdotal evidence is NOT meaningless - it's a starting point. But it's not proof. You need to understand this if you're going to fit in with the culture on this board.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 05:55 PM
There are more than a few problems with how you're using this report.

For one, there is no indication of group sizes (only the total population size, which was 398 moderately obese subjects), so we can't assess for ourselves statistical differences between the treatment groups. Now, there were four treatment groups, so it's probably reasonable to assume approximately 100 individuals in each, but that's all we can do, assume.

Furthermore, the subjects were all moderately obese, not athletes, and most certainly, not lifting weights in any noteworthy capacity.

The average weight lost over a six month period for the two low-fat groups was 0.9kg and 1.8kg respectively - not a HUGE weight loss by any definition - roughly a 40 calorie to 80 calorie a day deficit.

The experimenters themselves concluded as follows: "Our findings suggest that reduction of fat intake results in a modest but significant reduction in body weight and body fatness. The concomitant increase in either simple or complex carbohydrates did not indicate significant differences in weight change. " - in other words, while there was a small difference between the amounts lost in the simple vs complex carb groups, the between-group difference was not considered statistically significant. In fact, the only conclusion the study finds is that lower fat diets tend to promote weight/fat loss.

The biggest problem with this study is that there is no indication of how caloric intake was regulated - in fact, it does not appear to have been regulated at all. My suspicion is that hunger was lower and compliance was higher in the complex carb group than in the simple carb group - and I speak from experience here, having suffered excruciating hunger on simple carbs back in my low-fat days. These people were not locked in cages and fed controlled diets. This, unfortunately, is the only way to absolutely know the answer to this question, and sadly, this kind of study is considered "unethical" by Journal review committees.

Bastardini.


Fair enough.

Bottomline, there is no conclusive evidence either way... I think it's safe to say that you can lose weight eating simple sugars (with a caloric deficit), we all agree on that. So we are forced to go based on our own experiences/research....

So how do you feel about eating anything you want while bulking, as long as you get enough of each macronutrient? Are you on the side of eat anything you want as long as you are tracking calories?

Built
07-28-2006, 05:55 PM
"which happens to match the advice given everywhere I've looked...."

And matches nothing I've seen that has passed scientific scrutiny. Which doesn't mean it isn't true, but I have yet to see evidence that supports your hypothesis.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 06:31 PM
"which happens to match the advice given everywhere I've looked...."

And matches nothing I've seen that has passed scientific scrutiny. Which doesn't mean it isn't true, but I have yet to see evidence that supports your hypothesis.


Right but that goes both ways. Just as I haven't been able to provide undeniable evidence for what I've found, you can't either. We are arguing over beliefs.

You didn't answer my question though. If a calorie is a calorie and nothing more in terms of fat gain/loss, then would you recommend loading up on simple sugars during a bulk and or a cut? Why advise people to eat certain foods or eat "clean" if you can eat anything you want and you won't gain any less muscle/more fat?

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 06:33 PM
The problem with this "personal experience" testimony is that the question pertains specifically to complex carbs and sugar (in this case, table sugar/sucrose)

More specifically, the OP only addressed carbohydrates and proteins. Using a personal diet that includes cookies, etc etc to back up argument does not make much sense.

As Built said, we can speculate using knowledge of carbohydrate metabolism and function, or test it using a completely controlled study.

I dropped a crap load of fat when I switched to higher carb/lower fat back in 2003, but that sure doesn;t mean that that style of diet results in more weight loss than another diet.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 06:48 PM
The problem with this "personal experience" testimony is that the question pertains specifically to complex carbs and sugar (in this case, table sugar/sucrose)

More specifically, the OP only addressed carbohydrates and proteins. Using a personal diet that includes cookies, etc etc to back up argument does not make much sense.

As Built said, we can speculate using knowledge of carbohydrate metabolism and function, or test it using a completely controlled study.

I dropped a crap load of fat when I switched to higher carb/lower fat back in 2003, but that sure doesn;t mean that that style of diet results in more weight loss than another diet.


I see what you're saying but I expanded table sugar to mean any food that is considered high GI. To me that makes sense in terms of what the OP was asking. We all want to know if we can eat sweets as long as we have the willpower to limit it and not have it affect our end result.

It doesn't seem like there are many studies built around muscle growth or diet in terms of sports performance. A lot of the advice is simply speculation or personal experience.... That always bugged me. It seems like this whole topic would be easy enough to prove, someone just needs to do it. I guess no one is paying to have this kind of study done.

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 06:53 PM
I see what you're saying but I expanded table sugar to mean any food that is considered high GI. To me that makes sense in terms of what the OP was asking. We all want to know if we can eat sweets as long as we have the willpower to limit it and not have it affect our end result.

It doesn't seem like there are many studies built around muscle growth or diet in terms of sports performance. A lot of the advice is simply speculation or personal experience.... That always bugged me. It seems like this whole topic would be easy enough to prove, someone just needs to do it. I guess no one is paying to have this kind of study done.
I will do it if you pay me

Built
07-28-2006, 06:54 PM
Right but that goes both ways. Just as I haven't been able to provide undeniable evidence for what I've found, you can't either. We are arguing over beliefs.
No, you're arguing over beliefs. I'm waiting for evidence.

See, here's the way it works in science. You have an idea that something has an effect, in this case, that simple and complex carbs produce differing fat loss in the body. This usually comes from some sort of anecdotal experience. Perfectly reasonable starting point.

So, you design an experiment, randomly assign treatments, control for as many things as you can, randomize for the rest of it.

The null hypothesis is "there is no difference between the control and experimental groups"
The alternative is "there is".

In this case, the null hypothesis is "simple and complex produce the same rate of fat loss, controlling for everything else"
The alternative is "they don't"

You don't prove the null. That's your assumption to begin with. You have to wait for evidence to refute the null.

I have nothing to prove. I'm not arguing for the alternative. I'm still not rejecting the null - I've seen no evidence that supports rejecting it.

See how that works?

It's the same with anything.

Ho: the new drug works no better or worse than placebo
Ha: the new drug works differently from placebo

Until you have evidence to support Ha, you are forced to continue to accept the null.

Welcome to my world.




You didn't answer my question though. If a calorie is a calorie and nothing more in terms of fat gain/loss, then would you recommend loading up on simple sugars during a bulk and or a cut? Why advise people to eat certain foods or eat "clean" if you can eat anything you want and you won't gain any less muscle/more fat?

I do it out of comfort - I simply can NOT control appetite, even on a bulk, with a high sugar diet. I also don't get as many calories as you young fellas do - I need to make sure I get in nutrient-dense food for the few calories I get to consume so I remain well-nourished.

There is also the issue of fructose, of which sucrose (and HFCS) is half by composition. Fructose metabolism is very different from glucose (dextrose) and glucose polymers (maltodextrin, starches). Not all simple carbs are bad. Not all complex carbs are good.

Finally, there are OTHER reasons besides fat gain/loss for controlling the insulin response (inflammation, for example). Body composition is just one of them.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 07:04 PM
I understand the point your making built but now you're just getting nittpicky (i chose that word instead of another :-P).

If everyone thought the world was flat but you had travelled around the world, would you still believe it was flat until someone scientifically proved it to be round? :-P.

Built
07-28-2006, 07:09 PM
I would test it myself. I'd have reason to come up with a means of testing the hypothesis, based on personal observation: anecdotal evidence.

Then I'd publish my work and get burned at the stake for heresy, or possibly witchcraft.

I'm actually not being nit-picky at all - I'm using the scientific method, in exactly the same way as any scientist would.

It's what people expect on this board.

Paladyr
07-28-2006, 07:13 PM
I would test it myself. I'd have reason to come up with a means of testing the hypothesis, based on personal observation: anecdotal evidence.

Then I'd publish my work and get burned at the stake for heresy, or possibly witchcraft.

I'm actually not being nit-picky at all - I'm using the scientific method, in exactly the same way as any scientist would.

It's what people expect on this board.

ooooookaaaayy....

<slowly walks away hoping she won't notice....>

Built
07-28-2006, 07:23 PM
Paladyr has left the thread.

HahnB
07-28-2006, 07:47 PM
No, you're arguing over beliefs. I'm waiting for evidence.

See, here's the way it works in science. You have an idea that something has an effect, in this case, that simple and complex carbs produce differing fat loss in the body. This usually comes from some sort of anecdotal experience. Perfectly reasonable starting point.

So, you design an experiment, randomly assign treatments, control for as many things as you can, randomize for the rest of it.

The null hypothesis is "there is no difference between the control and experimental groups"
The alternative is "there is".

In this case, the null hypothesis is "simple and complex produce the same rate of fat loss, controlling for everything else"
The alternative is "they don't"

You don't prove the null. That's your assumption to begin with. You have to wait for evidence to refute the null.

I have nothing to prove. I'm not arguing for the alternative. I'm still not rejecting the null - I've seen no evidence that supports rejecting it.

See how that works?

It's the same with anything.

Ho: the new drug works no better or worse than placebo
Ha: the new drug works differently from placebo

Until you have evidence to support Ha, you are forced to continue to accept the null.

Welcome to my world.



I do it out of comfort - I simply can NOT control appetite, even on a bulk, with a high sugar diet. I also don't get as many calories as you young fellas do - I need to make sure I get in nutrient-dense food for the few calories I get to consume so I remain well-nourished.

There is also the issue of fructose, of which sucrose (and HFCS) is half by composition. Fructose metabolism is very different from glucose (dextrose) and glucose polymers (maltodextrin, starches). Not all simple carbs are bad. Not all complex carbs are good.

Finally, there are OTHER reasons besides fat gain/loss for controlling the insulin response (inflammation, for example). Body composition is just one of them.

Kind of off topic, but we use Ho and Ha in our quantitative business analysis class. I hate those problems-more than anything. I wasn't aware they used it in scienece as well.

Slim Schaedle
07-28-2006, 07:54 PM
I understand the point your making built but now you're just getting nittpicky (i chose that word instead of another :-P).

If everyone thought the world was flat but you had travelled around the world, would you still believe it was flat until someone scientifically proved it to be round? :-P.
This is not even close to getting as nit-picky as it could, concerning the topic.

Darcy Tucker
07-28-2006, 08:13 PM
Thanks guys for the debate. I always thought there was a simple answer but I guess not. I'm just a new personal trainer and I wanted to make sure I don't end up eating my words.

Holto
07-29-2006, 07:13 PM
Thanks guys for the debate. I always thought there was a simple answer but I guess not. I'm just a new personal trainer and I wanted to make sure I don't end up eating my words.

There is a really simple answer.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics: A Generalizaton of The Law of The Conservation of Energy


If you burn 2000 calories a day and you eat 1500 cals of cookies and milk your body is short 500 calories that it must burn for critical functions. Such as oxygenating and circulating your blood. The kinetic energy required by your lungs and heart come from chemical energy from both food and what is stored in our bodies.

If our body does not ingest the energy required to function over a given period of time it dips into stored energy. Energy stored as fat, glycogen, structural proteins ie: LBM, etc.

gator
07-30-2006, 09:06 PM
(i'm in the process of trying to find some studies, i'll post some if i can find).

When your body releases insulin you can't burn fat or as much fat if you didn't have as much insulin in your blood stream correct? Therefor doesn't your body have less time to burn stored fat, i dont think your body just just burn more fat later on. From my understanding your body would rather burn off muscle than fat because fat is more usefull than muscle for survival it's much easier to burn off a lb of muscle than a lb of fat. hope you see where i'm going with this...lol

Also simple sugars have weaker chemical bonds than complex sugars, if i'm not mistaken, it would be a guess of mine that it would take more energy to break down the complex carbs then the simple carbs.


I'm not a science guy just throwing some stuff out there..

Holto
07-31-2006, 10:24 AM
I'm not a science guy just throwing some stuff out there..

Have you done the reading required to understand the 1st law of thermodynamics and how it relates to gaining and losing weight?

Don't bother reading anything unti you have this covered.

Until you understand how the laws of physics GOVERN biological systems you will misundertand everything you read.

RedSpikeyThing
07-31-2006, 09:17 PM
I started having flashbacks to my "Research Methods" class.....then the "Ho" and "Ha" came out and I screamed a little...

Seriously though, this is a good thread for people who don't know/understand the scientific method.

Paladyr
06-29-2012, 12:51 PM
Back from the dead but it looks like I was on the right track thinking the type of foods you are eating do matter when cutting, it's not just total calories, although my explanation for why was off.

http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12422704-low-carb-diets-may-burn-the-most-calories

Behemoth
06-29-2012, 02:56 PM
http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12422704-low-carb-diets-may-burn-the-most-calories

Different macros have different thermic effects when metabolized. This study says nothing of the specifics on how all three were controlled. Consider that fat calories are the most efficiently utilized it's zero surprise that "Researchers found that overweight people burned 350 more calories a day, on average, when they ate a low-carbohydrate diet, than when they ate a low-fat diet. "

krazylarry
06-29-2012, 09:24 PM
I thought carb cals, sugar especially was broken down the most easy and used the least amount of cals to broken down, followed my fat, and last protein which used the most energy to be broken down and used. No?

Behemoth
06-29-2012, 10:13 PM
Fat then carbs then protein. Wanna to say 2-3%, 6-8%, 20-30% respectively (estimated). Check lyles site/articles, should be able to find some more info

Caino
06-30-2012, 04:54 PM
well im having a 5 pancake stack pwo today screw the complex carbs!! but my question is how much of these simple carbs will the body uptake pwo before it does start to get converted to fat?

Travis Bell
06-30-2012, 07:15 PM
well im having a 5 pancake stack pwo today screw the complex carbs!! but my question is how much of these simple carbs will the body uptake pwo before it does start to get converted to fat?

Depends on how much your body needs to replenish. There isn't a set number

Caino
06-30-2012, 09:37 PM
ah i see, yeah i think it would of been way over but i needed to indulge a bit (4 pancakes 3 scoop icream and hot fudge!) after a pretty heavy gslp session so there would of been some benifit but not all i guess


http://strengthvillain.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3398 this is my workings out seeing as therre is backround info on me