Alright so I was debating with this guy at another forum. I was pretty sure I was right but now I don't know what to say.
Himon't have to count calories to have a six pack. Just severely limit your sugar intake. Guaranteed.
Me:Uh not really
Sugar is a fast burning carb so people have to eat alot to get full which in turn makes people eat alot of calories. There's no gimmicks it's just eat less than you burn.
Him:You're 15. No offense, but you have no idea. It has been proven that people consuming low to no sugar can actually eat more calories than others, do the same amount of cardio/workout, and still lose more weight. There are many factors that enter the equation. Sugar puts a massive strain on your body.
Him(again): ^ For the record, when I started eating zero sugar, I dropped 12 pounds in two months. I am 5'7", 150 right now. I train using HIT once every 5 days, in six week on, two week off cycles. I've been training for as long as you've been alive. I've also read enough worthy articles (not Flex magazine) to know fact from opinion.
Here...read up on sugar:
What is the thermic effect? :http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_sugar.html
Sugar vs. Mixed Nutrient consumption :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
What do you guys think?Please
Last edited by arya202; 08-14-2006 at 05:46 PM.
Ask him to show you the study where this has been proven.It has been proven that people consuming low to no sugar can actually eat more calories than others, do the same amount of cardio/workout, and still lose more weight. There are many factors that enter the equation. Sugar puts a massive strain on your body.
Thanks built you know everything.
This is what I told him:
I don't know about your second link but your first just says what I said before in a more complex fashion: Sugar simply does not give you the energy complex carbs do and therefore you eat more of it because it doesn't make you hungry.
I can eat 2500 calories of oatmeal or 2500 calories of sugar in a day, I'd be alot hungrier if I ate the sugar but I would lose the same amount of fat with both. Read the first article again it even says "However, the greater concern with the insulin surge is not that it tells our body to start storing fat. This is because whatever we eat that we don't burn up eventually gets turned into fat anyway."
I would like to see the study you speak of BTW.
This is what he said in responce^
Did you look at the thermic effect? Sugar has a very low thermic effect...it does not require much energy to digest it. It does put a strain on certain organs, but it does not increase your metabolism. The second link shows a comparison of a sugar drink and a mixed nutrient drink. The mixed nutrient drink shows that, though you consumed the same # of calories, you spent 1.5x as many calories in the digestion thereof. Extrapolate out.
Sugar is a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates have a fairly high TEF - not as high as protein, but higher than fat.
Furthermore, how many calories are we talking here? So you spend 30 calories to digest something instead of twenty? Hardly significant.
And I'd still like to see the study. If it's real, I'm sure it's in pubmed.
Oh, and here:
"Carbohydrate type and body weight regulation
The effects of different types of carbohydrates on body weight regulation have been reviewed recently (110). While there are clear differences in metabolism of carbohydrates and fat that could affect body weight regulation, there do not appear to be such metabolic differences between types of carbohydrate. The majority of comparisons have been made between simple sugars and complex carbohydrates. There is little scientific support for the commonly held perception that consumption of high amounts of simple sugar contributes to obesity. There is no evidence that simple sugars are used with a different efficiency than complex carbohydrates (other than dietary fibre or resistant oligosaccharides). While there is substantial data suggesting that high levels of dietary fat intake are associated with high levels of obesity, at present there is no reason to believe that high intake of simple sugar is associated with high levels of obesity.
Does carbohydrate make you fat? The idea that increased insulin concentrations subsequent to carbohydrate intake lead to conversion of significant amounts of carbohydrate to fat is misleading. First, it takes an extreme excess of carbohydrate to produce de novo lipogenesis, and even under these conditions, very little net fat is produced from carbohydrate. Second, the idea that persons with insulin resistance are particularly prone to become obese when eating high carbohydrate diets is unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. In fact, low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets are commonly recommended to prevent further weight gain for these individuals who are at risk to develop non-insulin dependent diabetes and coronary heart disease. Finally, substantial data suggest that voluntary energy intake is higher in many people when the diet is high in fat content and low in carbohydrate content. Excess consumption of energy in any form leads to accumulation of body fat. There is no serious scientific evidence to suggest, however, that diets high in carbohydrate promote weight gain when consumed in amounts which do not exceed energy requirements. "
For the record, I'm insulin resistant and I lost weight on Atkins. But that's EXTREMELY low carb, which tends to suppress appetite.
So I typically ate less.
And lost weight.
I haven't read through all the links provided but I will offer some points.Originally Posted by arya202
The mdeia is mainly responsible but sugar is not "fast burning" anymore than stored glycoen or ingested polysaccharides are.
It is digested faster and can lead to some problems if intake is high (insulin, shuttling to adipose tissue, etc) but if your body needs glycogen, then ingested sugar will form glycogen. Besides, all carbohydrate is in the form of sugar once it exits the liver anyway.
In short, the use of "fast-burning"to describe sugar is something I don't like (nor really makes sense)
Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 08-14-2006 at 06:52 PM.
A given amount of sugar and a similar amount of complex carbs would provide the same energy yield.Originally Posted by arya202
(of course "useable energy" from glycogen comes into play regarding fructose/sucrose intake if overall carb intake is relatively high.)
Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 08-14-2006 at 06:54 PM.
Man the more i read about insulin repsonse to sugar the more confused i get...
x2. I just keep it down as much as I can, except for on 'date or go out with our friends' night where I gleefully devour a slice of six layer chocolate cake from Swiss Chalet simply to show off the fact that I can without reverting me to a 35% fatass.Originally Posted by gator
The Reconstruction Project (Journal)
Age: 34, Height: 5'4, Weight: 185, BF: somewhere between 15 and 45%
Weightlifting Start Date: July 26, 2005 - Bench 95 x 6, Dead 110 x 8, Smith Squat 180 x 8
Bests: Bench 185 x 8, Dead 400 x 1, Zercher Squat 295 x 3
Stop thinking and go lift - Paul Stagg