9 ms·

>The insulin response to sugar is the primary way your body stores fat and sugar itself is readily converted to fat This is a common myth, but it's wrong. Diet

by pvnick 13y ago

>The insulin response to sugar is the primary way your body stores fat and sugar itself is readily converted to fat This is a common myth, but it's wrong. Dietary fat is what is primarily stored and leads to weight gain during caloric excess; dietary carbs just decrease the amount of fat being used for energy, but can also get stored as fat tissue during overfeeding in a process called de novo lipogenesis (which is what you're describing) [1] [4]. Would you believe protein also elicits an insulin response? [2] So why not just eat butter? Well, it turns out fat can get stored without insulin at all, with the help of a little molecule called acylation stimulation protein [3]. Nutrition is harder than it seems. Again, it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. [1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full [2] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf [3] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and... [4] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-n...

eclipxe 13y ago
We can go back and forth on this, but HN isn't the place. I've had this debate many times and it ends nowhere. Bottom line, calories-in vs calories-out is a fine and dandy statement, but tells us nothing of value about the cause of increased calorie consumption. I agree with you that for weight gain to occur, there must be a greater energy intake than burn, but what causes more caloric intake?
- matwood 13y ago
  Eating? I'm only partially joking. Calories don't just magically appear.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    Eating is an effect, not a cause. Much of of the cause is subconscious regulatory systems in the brain, which function like magic to a person consciously trying to eat less.
  - mixmastamyk 13y ago
    Sugar makes you feel like you're starving. You get sleepy at the peak, "starving" at the trough... like a repeating sine wave. Leads to overeating.
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      But who eats sugar to get full? I (and everyone I know) eat sweets after a meal, or because I see them, not because I expect to sate my hunger with it.
      - pierreio 13y ago
        Lustig's point is that you don't know you're eating sugar when you actually are. Up to 10% corn syrup in white breads, sauces, any precooked meal, sausages. If you eat BBQ sauce, you're eating sugar. Salt and sugar save low aroma food (>80% processed food). Their combined power on the human body is vicious.
        StavrosK 13y ago
        As the other commenter said, this is pretty much just the US, I just didn't realize the article wasn't talking globally.
      - threeseed 13y ago
        Ask anyone who isn't American what the first thing they notice about the food when they visit the US. How sweet everything is.
        StavrosK 13y ago
        That's me, and you're right, everything's very sweet and buttery. I guess I was thinking the article applied to me, when the answer to my question was "Americans".
        hfsktr 13y ago
        My friend is from England and the few times she's been to America the primary thing she's said is that the portions here are ridiculously large. At places like Chili's or Applebees she ended up ordering appetizers and eating half of that as a meal. I got a regular meal but I knew in advance I would be taking it to go halfway through, as I usually do.
- joering2 13y ago
  Right on, and thats why they brand sugar as deadly poison -- it affects your brain and tricks it into wanting more of it because its a drug of pleasure. Then it makes you never full so you eat more of other stuff that eventually gets you sick. Like with anything else, including alcohol or even heroine (altho that one very limited) - nothing in reasonable limitations will kill you. If you have strong will then you keep your brain on leech and treat it as a pleasure you consume time to time in limitations. If you eat it daily in large quanitities, then you helping yourself to get sick.
ynniv 13y ago
it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. 12 cans of Coke a day = healthy diet?
- eclipxe 13y ago
  Hey man, calories-in, calories-out! Calorie-is-a-calorie! Sugar is fine! All in moderation! Heroin is fine, all in moderation!
  - cperciva 13y ago
    Heroin is fine, all in moderation! In fact, numerous studies have found exactly this.
    - mullingitover 13y ago
      Not true--it causes constipation.
    - aparadja 13y ago
      Could you post links to some reputable ones?
      - glenra 13y ago
        When heroin was legal, addicts often took it in pill form which was cheap and sufficient to deter cravings. The chief negative long-term effect of being addicted to heroin is constipation...IF you can reliably keep a supply of it in pill form. The negative effects we see in addicts today are mostly caused by two factors: (1) if you shoot up, needle - especially dirty needles - can be a vector for infection and diseases such as HIV, (2) if you can't get a reliable supply of known potency you can go through withdrawal or overdose - the wild swings are harmful. (Impurities in the drug can also be harmful depending on what it's been "cut" with.) So if the drug were legal it'd be fine. But when it's illegal, some characteristics of an illegal market make it bad for people - those are problems related to the illegality, not really having much to do with the drug itself.
    - 13y ago
ef4 13y ago
> Again, it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. When it isn't working right, people try to drive the process with their frontal cortex instead, which only a small fraction of population can actually achieve for any significant length of time. So the most interesting questions in nutrition science are all around what effects satiety and why we have an epidemic of people with broken control loops. Sugar is a very strong suspect in that investigation. And before someone says we aren't evolved for an environment of plenty, and our bodies just hoard every calorie they can get in case of famine -- that's really not it. No mammal simply hoards every calorie it can get without homeostatic feedback. Survival incentivizes balance -- hoarding a calorie means you don't spend that calorie today on something else that would aid your reproductive success. Which is why we (and most animals) have an extremely dynamic system to monitor and maintain appropriate energy stores.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  > Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. What evidence leads you to believe this? There's no prima facie reason to believe evolution has adapted mammals to a glut of food, since for all but, generously, about the last ten thousand years, it wasn't really a problem that a significant portion of the gene pool faced. It would require some evidence to believe that the body has this capability.
  - beachstartup 13y ago
    a bear is a perfect example of an mammal that uses its insulin response during glut times to store fat. 1. gain weight during the summer by eating high sugar, high starch, high calorie foods such as fruit, berries, roots, honey/insects, and as much whole fatty fish as it can get its hands on for a super high calorie kick. it HAS to gain weight in the summer, and does so easily on that diet. 2. during the winter it hibernates and burns nothing but fat, losing the weight and avoiding starving. people can do this too, believe it or not. fasted ketosis is a thing you can sustain for quite a while as long as you drink water. this doens't prove anything in humans, but is an obvious counter-example to no evidence to believe that mammals don't have food glut adaptations. but just for anecdotes' sake, what does an obese human typically eat? exactly the same diet. high sugar (soda/fruit juice), high starch (all junk food), roots (LOTS of potatoes, mostly fried), and extremely high calorie kickers like cheeseburgers and pizza to ensure a calorie surplus.
31reasons 13y ago
>>This is a common myth, but it's wrong. Stop your nonsense. Its chemistry.
the_imp 13y ago
> Dietary fat is what is primarily stored and leads to weight gain during caloric excess Do you have a source for this? The sources [1], [4] you quoted don't seem to say that, at least in a way I could understand.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I could have posted a better reference for that claim, but I was actually very busy when I wrote that. This article by the same author (Lyle Mcdonald, a revered expert on nutrition) clears up that point very well: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...
  - eddiedunn 13y ago
    So your reference is a guy posting stuff on a blog? Well, here's a counter for you: I've lost 7 kgs on a ketogenic (low carb, high fat) diet. I eat as much as I want until I feel full. And according to body measurement scans, I lost mostly visceral fat and almost no muscle, which is amazing. Yeah, try telling me you get fat from eating proteins and fat.
timmm 13y ago
Calories in vs. calories out would assume we all have identical digestive physiologies which we don't. Furthermore there are many practices in cattle raising that allow for more fat and muscle gain without increasing calories but instead changing other factors. The following shows the hormone regimen for cattle to increase fat without changing the calories in aspect of the equation. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/production/beef/growth-implants-for-beef-cattle.html http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/production/beef/g...

by pvnick 13y ago

eclipxe 13y ago

We can go back and forth on this, but HN isn't the place. I've had this debate many times and it ends nowhere. Bottom line, calories-in vs calories-out is a fine and dandy statement, but tells us nothing of value about the cause of increased calorie consumption. I agree with you that for weight gain to occur, there must be a greater energy intake than burn, but what causes more caloric intake?

matwood 13y ago
Eating? I'm only partially joking. Calories don't just magically appear.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Eating is an effect, not a cause. Much of of the cause is subconscious regulatory systems in the brain, which function like magic to a person consciously trying to eat less.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  Sugar makes you feel like you're starving. You get sleepy at the peak, "starving" at the trough... like a repeating sine wave. Leads to overeating.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    But who eats sugar to get full? I (and everyone I know) eat sweets after a meal, or because I see them, not because I expect to sate my hunger with it.
    - pierreio 13y ago
      Lustig's point is that you don't know you're eating sugar when you actually are. Up to 10% corn syrup in white breads, sauces, any precooked meal, sausages. If you eat BBQ sauce, you're eating sugar. Salt and sugar save low aroma food (>80% processed food). Their combined power on the human body is vicious.
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        As the other commenter said, this is pretty much just the US, I just didn't realize the article wasn't talking globally.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      Ask anyone who isn't American what the first thing they notice about the food when they visit the US. How sweet everything is.
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        That's me, and you're right, everything's very sweet and buttery. I guess I was thinking the article applied to me, when the answer to my question was "Americans".
      - hfsktr 13y ago
        My friend is from England and the few times she's been to America the primary thing she's said is that the portions here are ridiculously large. At places like Chili's or Applebees she ended up ordering appetizers and eating half of that as a meal. I got a regular meal but I knew in advance I would be taking it to go halfway through, as I usually do.
joering2 13y ago
Right on, and thats why they brand sugar as deadly poison -- it affects your brain and tricks it into wanting more of it because its a drug of pleasure. Then it makes you never full so you eat more of other stuff that eventually gets you sick. Like with anything else, including alcohol or even heroine (altho that one very limited) - nothing in reasonable limitations will kill you. If you have strong will then you keep your brain on leech and treat it as a pleasure you consume time to time in limitations. If you eat it daily in large quanitities, then you helping yourself to get sick.

ynniv 13y ago

it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. 12 cans of Coke a day = healthy diet?

eclipxe 13y ago
Hey man, calories-in, calories-out! Calorie-is-a-calorie! Sugar is fine! All in moderation! Heroin is fine, all in moderation!
- cperciva 13y ago
  Heroin is fine, all in moderation! In fact, numerous studies have found exactly this.
  - mullingitover 13y ago
    Not true--it causes constipation.
  - aparadja 13y ago
    Could you post links to some reputable ones?
    - glenra 13y ago
      When heroin was legal, addicts often took it in pill form which was cheap and sufficient to deter cravings. The chief negative long-term effect of being addicted to heroin is constipation...IF you can reliably keep a supply of it in pill form. The negative effects we see in addicts today are mostly caused by two factors: (1) if you shoot up, needle - especially dirty needles - can be a vector for infection and diseases such as HIV, (2) if you can't get a reliable supply of known potency you can go through withdrawal or overdose - the wild swings are harmful. (Impurities in the drug can also be harmful depending on what it's been "cut" with.) So if the drug were legal it'd be fine. But when it's illegal, some characteristics of an illegal market make it bad for people - those are problems related to the illegality, not really having much to do with the drug itself.
  - 13y ago

ef4 13y ago

> Again, it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. When it isn't working right, people try to drive the process with their frontal cortex instead, which only a small fraction of population can actually achieve for any significant length of time. So the most interesting questions in nutrition science are all around what effects satiety and why we have an epidemic of people with broken control loops. Sugar is a very strong suspect in that investigation. And before someone says we aren't evolved for an environment of plenty, and our bodies just hoard every calorie they can get in case of famine -- that's really not it. No mammal simply hoards every calorie it can get without homeostatic feedback. Survival incentivizes balance -- hoarding a calorie means you don't spend that calorie today on something else that would aid your reproductive success. Which is why we (and most animals) have an extremely dynamic system to monitor and maintain appropriate energy stores.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
> Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. What evidence leads you to believe this? There's no prima facie reason to believe evolution has adapted mammals to a glut of food, since for all but, generously, about the last ten thousand years, it wasn't really a problem that a significant portion of the gene pool faced. It would require some evidence to believe that the body has this capability.
- beachstartup 13y ago
  a bear is a perfect example of an mammal that uses its insulin response during glut times to store fat. 1. gain weight during the summer by eating high sugar, high starch, high calorie foods such as fruit, berries, roots, honey/insects, and as much whole fatty fish as it can get its hands on for a super high calorie kick. it HAS to gain weight in the summer, and does so easily on that diet. 2. during the winter it hibernates and burns nothing but fat, losing the weight and avoiding starving. people can do this too, believe it or not. fasted ketosis is a thing you can sustain for quite a while as long as you drink water. this doens't prove anything in humans, but is an obvious counter-example to no evidence to believe that mammals don't have food glut adaptations. but just for anecdotes' sake, what does an obese human typically eat? exactly the same diet. high sugar (soda/fruit juice), high starch (all junk food), roots (LOTS of potatoes, mostly fried), and extremely high calorie kickers like cheeseburgers and pizza to ensure a calorie surplus.

31reasons 13y ago

>>This is a common myth, but it's wrong. Stop your nonsense. Its chemistry.

the_imp 13y ago

> Dietary fat is what is primarily stored and leads to weight gain during caloric excess Do you have a source for this? The sources [1], [4] you quoted don't seem to say that, at least in a way I could understand.

pvnick 13y ago
I could have posted a better reference for that claim, but I was actually very busy when I wrote that. This article by the same author (Lyle Mcdonald, a revered expert on nutrition) clears up that point very well: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...
- eddiedunn 13y ago
  So your reference is a guy posting stuff on a blog? Well, here's a counter for you: I've lost 7 kgs on a ketogenic (low carb, high fat) diet. I eat as much as I want until I feel full. And according to body measurement scans, I lost mostly visceral fat and almost no muscle, which is amazing. Yeah, try telling me you get fat from eating proteins and fat.

timmm 13y ago

Calories in vs. calories out would assume we all have identical digestive physiologies which we don't. Furthermore there are many practices in cattle raising that allow for more fat and muscle gain without increasing calories but instead changing other factors. The following shows the hormone regimen for cattle to increase fat without changing the calories in aspect of the equation. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/production/beef/growth-implants-for-beef-cattle.html http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/production/beef/g...