The FastDay Forum

Catalyst is an excellent on Australian television featuring scientific and health related topics and last night they had one titled "TOXIC SUGAR"

Some of the important things that came out which i think has implications for our Intermittent fasting ways.

We're often blamed for eating too much and not exercising enough. But some of the world's top experts refute this stereotype.

Most dieticians will tell you to watch your calories, because it's all about energy balance - calories in versus calories out. But it's not actually that simple. We're biological systems, so we metabolise different calories in different ways.

It depends on where those calories come from, it depends on what those calories are, it depends on how those calories are metabolised, as to whether or not they will cause weight gain. When you burn protein for energy, it takes twice as much energy to metabolise that protein into energy as for carbohydrate. It's known as the 'thermic effect of food'. Those calories are not recoupable. So you actually burn more energy metabolising protein than you do carbohydrate.

The studies show that exercise has virtually no effect on weight loss. One thing exercise does is it makes people hungry.

Until now, each generation has always had a longer lifespan than the previous. But it's been predicted this current generation won't. And obesity is to blame. Even if we act now, it'll take a generation or two to turn the tide around. And if our experts are right, the weight of the nation rests of the shoulders of the food industry.


FULL TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO FOR DOWNLOAD HERE

[url]http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm[/url]



Thoughts?

Apparently I was living in a cave for my entire life because I've never heard that sugar didn't make you fat or that it was healthy to eat a lot of it.

And calories in/calories out? To me it just seems like people are making excuses when they say it doesn't work that way. I know that won't be a popular thing to say around here or on any diet site. Sure you can tweak it by changing the balance of what foods you eat fat v carbs v refined sugar v protein. You can eat foods that speed up your metabolism. You can eat foods that bind to fats so you crap some of the excess calories out (i.e. the low fat dairy that binds excess fat and helps weight loss from one of Dr. M's shows). You can manipulate your insulin and ghrelin levels. But the basic premise of taking in fewer calories and/or using more is how people lose weight. All these tweaks, like missing meals, just help you get there.

Hence we are all using a calorie restriction diet plan! If calories in/calories out didn't work, then 5:2 in it's simplest form wouldn't work.

And part of their argument is that the more sugar you eat the more you want. Which means what? That people abuse sugar and eat too much and too many calories. Again too many calories in.

I agree with those saying that demonizing sugar is as bad as demonizing fat. This is why I don't listen much to people who bang on about any one food or ingredient being bad. Everything in moderation. Including all the foods that people go on and on about being good.

Looks interesting. Will have to watch first before forming an opinion or commenting on the show or its premise.

But, in response to O'Dell I do not buy into calories in/calories out. It absolutely doesn't apply to me having been diagnosed with both a metabolic disorder and low thyroid. Call it an excuse if you want, but I call it BS. My food intake combined with the miles I put in EVERY DAY should produce a loss three or four times what I actually lose. But, it doesn't happen.

So do you think that every person has a metabolic disorder and a low thyroid? And don't those just mean that you don't burn a typical number of calories for the same activity? It means it's harder for you to produce a high number of calories out? Yes?

If people don't believe calories in/calories out is true, then why the emphasis that some here put on eating TDEE on feed days and creating a calorie deficit over the week with 2 fast days? Those are all based on making the calories going into your body as less than the calories you burn going about your normal week's activity.

What it means for me is that I can eat 500 calories, do 30 "very active" minutes of exercise and put in 7-8 miles a day and still gain weight on fast day, stall, and/or not lose any weight at all for weeks in a row. It isn't overeating and it isn't lack of exercise. I can say that for certain. I can't speak for everyone and I didn't. What I said was that calories in/calories out absolutely doesn't work for me with my medical condtion. I am sure that there are people who don't have those issues. But, I don't think a medical condition is just an excuse. If you believe that... then it must be because you don't have one. Maybe you could walk 9.39 miles in my shoes. (That's the number my Fitbit says I walked today.)

The program definitely points out that people metabolise calories in a different way, hence 43tweaker's experience and many more here.
9.4miles is impressive 43tweaker!

Kids (teens) are all finally in bed, with homework done and all my steps in...so I plan to watch it now. Thanks, it is a little higher number than usual. But, I had one low step day when we went out of town over the weekend. Also, ate a few restaurant meals which is pretty unusual for us; but we were at a hotel. I really try to get a balance with moving more since I ate more. But, my body/scale doesn't always cooperate like I think it should.

I think the more activity is something neglected by the majority of 5:2ers (sweeping statement i know but a gut feel). Lower intake, more activity for many should have better results (with exceptions like yourself 43tweaker where clearly there are some other factors involved)

I know the program said exercise doesnt help weight loss but that sounds just wrong

[quote="Juliana.Rivers"

I know the program said exercise doesnt help weight loss but that sounds just wrong[/quote]

The program does not say that, the latest research does: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 30597.html

That exercise has a material impact on weight loss is one of many urban legends that sound good but have no factual support. I have a post on the matter: 5-2-diet-chat-f6/topic6543.html

I agree about weight loss. I was losing pretty consistently on this WOE, then went hiking in the Lake District for a week. We walked up hills for 5 hours a day, sometimes more. We burned several thousand extra calories a day. We ate slightly more than normal, but definitely not several thousand calories more. I put on half a stone in a week, which has taken me three weeks to shift most of it, so was not all water. I think there is a big difference between 'keeping active', ie getting off the sofa and out of the car adn using your legs more, and 'exercising' which gets you hot and sweaty and makes you hungry. The latter is good for the cardiovascular system, but bad for weight loss.

And calories in/calories out? To me it just seems like people are making excuses when they say it doesn't work that way. I know that won't be a popular thing to say around here or on any diet site. Sure you can tweak it by changing the balance of what foods you eat fat v carbs v refined sugar v protein. You can eat foods that speed up your metabolism. You can eat foods that bind to fats so you crap some of the excess calories out (i.e. the low fat dairy that binds excess fat and helps weight loss from one of Dr. M's shows). You can manipulate your insulin and ghrelin levels. But the basic premise of taking in fewer calories and/or using more is how people lose weight. All these tweaks, like missing meals, just help you get there.

Hence we are all using a calorie restriction diet plan! If calories in/calories out didn't work, then 5:2 in it's simplest form wouldn't work.

And part of their argument is that the more sugar you eat the more you want. Which means what? That people abuse sugar and eat too much and too many calories. Again too many calories in.

I agree with those saying that demonizing sugar is as bad as demonizing fat. This is why I don't listen much to people who bang on about any one food or ingredient being bad. Everything in moderation. Including all the foods that people go on and on about being good.

I think Dr. Attia got it right when he said that for weight loss the most important factor is the type of food you eat (i e no or low carb) followed by the amount you eat. There is a lot of research supporting these statements.

Personally it rings true as well. I followed a low carb scheme where I ate 3000-4000 kcal per day and I lost a lot of weight doing so. If I eat 3500 kcal per day on a more regular diet, I gain weight. A lot of weight.

I would disagree that demonizing sugar is as bad as demonizing fat. I would prefer not demonizing neither and sticking to the facts instead. Fact is that as a whole sugar is a far inferior nutrient than saturated fat. You are going to have a hard time finding a fat person for whom it will be a bad thing to completely remove sugar from the diet. Sugar is the main culprit behind obesity in just about every case. You can´t really get around this without ignoring reality.

However, O´Dell. If anything bothers me it is people who look for excuses for their own failures, so although I don´t share your ideas in large on this topic I share your sentiment.

I am obese because I have neither eaten properly nor have I taken care of my body in other ways. It is as simple as that. No excuses.

I think Dr. Attia got it right when he said that for weight loss the most important factor is the type of food you eat (i e no or low carb) followed by the amount you eat. There is a lot of research supporting these statements.

Personally it rings true as well. I followed a low carb scheme where I ate 3000-4000 kcal per day and I lost a lot of weight doing so. If I eat 3500 kcal per day on a more regular diet, I gain weight. A lot of weight.

So what if the body burns different foods differently? The food still contains energy measured by calories. If the calories aren't used up, they get stored as fat. All the advice to avoid this and eat a lot of that as it helps with weight loss is merely tweaking or hacking the process. Those tweaks and hacks don't negate the basic premise of calories in/out in my view.

And burning those foods differently must be an individual thing. I don't eat low carb at all. I do tend to eat whole grains, except for weekends when I make a few exceptions for some refined carbs and sugary treats. I'm also a vegetarian and probably eating less protein than most. I naturally tend toward a lowfat diet as too much upsets my stomach. And I've tried eating protein in the form of eggs to stave off hunger as research and many here claim it works for them. Nope. Doesn't work at all for me. Oats with the addition of nuts does the trick. I can go all day on that. Yet I'm still losing weight at the average pound a week.

Oh and no exercise either. I am more active, but that translates to getting more done around the house. Got quite a few projects done this week! Not sure if that counts.

I don't think anyone claims that everybody has exactly the same metabolism. That would be foolish. Of course there are people who can eat more than others before they gain weight and vice versa.

Sure, cutting for instance carbs out of the diet is tweaking the process, so to speak. The tweak is that with less insulin in the blood, less fat will be stored. Calories do matter but it is not as simple as if if you eat a surplus of calories, all these calories are stored as fat. It simply does not work like that. I recommend Dr. Attias explanations of how the biochemistry works and why what we eat is more important than how much we eat. He does a lot better job at it than I ever could.

It is not strange that the body handles different fuels differently. The body prefers some fuels over others and of course this will vary a bit between individuals, mainly due to genetics but also depending on lifestyles.

I am not criticizing anyone who does not eat low carb. I eat carbs myself 3-4 days per week now, and I am losing weight as well due to the calorie restriction. In regards to you not being able to stave off hunger with eggs and doing better with oats and nuts, great. You have found what works for you. I claim that in general most people with weight problems will be more successful eating fewer carbs, but if someone finds a different method (like 5:2 or a combo), excellent.

Some quotes from the transcript I thought were interesting and/or discussion worthy.

NARRATION It's this increase in dietary carbohydrate that's messing with our metabolism. Professor Michael CowleyIf you constantly provide carbohydrates to the body, you'll have constantly high insulin levels, and that will lead to increased fat deposition in tissues. NARRATIONThe higher your insulin, the more likely you are to store fat, because insulin is the main hormone that puts fat into fat cells.

Professor Michael Cowley It's so hard to lose weight because we are metabolically programmed to return to where we were. We have a raft of hormones in our body that all drive to push us back to where we were. 97% of people who lose weight regain it within five years.

Professor Robert LustigThere is a hormone in your stomach called 'ghrelin', which is the hunger hormone. When your stomach is empty, ghrelin goes up, tells your brain, 'Hey, time to eat.' Then you eat, ghrelin goes down, and so hunger goes away. But, when you consume sugar, fructose does not get registered by the brain as you having eaten. Ghrelin doesn't change. You stay hungry.

@O'Dell - I think we have a very different definition of what calories in/calories out means. The way I take it, it literally means that there are 3500 calories in a pound. If you create a deficit of 3500 calories through eating and exercising...the body WILL respond by releasing a pound of weight. Calories in/calories out doesn't allow for personal differences in metabolism, age, sex, medical conditions or anything else. It says if you are doing it right the pounds will come off. That has not proven true for me and a lot of people because weight loss is A LOT more complicated than just calories in/calories out.

Have you ever watched Biggest Loser and seen weeks where the trainers beat the calories out of those people who are subsisting on little more than asparagus for hours and hours. Some weeks you will see a person lose nothing or even gain after all that. If calories in/calories out were true; that couldn't possibly happen. They wear montiors to track their burn, they have cameras montioring their every move, they track every bite of food that crosses their lips and Jillian Michael's is literally standing over them beating the calories out of them. So, how can a no loss week happen if calories in/calories out is true???