|
Dovetailing with some of the current forum discussions about sugar and diet composition in general is this study published two days ago: The effects of four hypocaloric diets containing different levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup on weight loss and related parameters ( PDF) The study took 5 participant groups and put 4 of them on what they estimated was a 500 calorie daily deficit. The fifth control group kept eating as it always had. The other four groups were given sweetened milk supplements that (in theory) resulted in the participants having a certain percentage of their daily calories come from either sucrose (half glucose, half fructose) or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS): 10% of calories from added sucrose 20% from added sucrose 10% from HFCS 20% from HFCS The results: Quote:The major finding of this prospective study is that typical population intake levels of added sugars prescribed at the level to deliver the 25th and 50th percentile population levels of fructose consumption does not prevent weight loss and associated improvements in body composition when prescribed in the context of a well designed and supervised weight loss program.
. . . .
Our data demonstrate that equally hypocaloric diets provoked similar weight changes regardless of type or amount of sugar consumed. All of the groups lost weight, and there were no statistically significant differences in body composition, rate of weight loss, or the other health markers studied. The participants who were getting 20% of their calories from added HFCS showed improvements on body composition and health markers, compared to the control group that ate almost half of the added sugars (50g/day vs 95g/day). The study was not without its limitations, the most significant of which is that is was a free-living experiment. Calorie intake was not controlled and relied on self-reporting, which can be notoriously inaccurate. Because self-reporting almost always errs on the side of underreporting, however, this would be more of a concern if any of the groups failed to lose weight or body fat. None did, however. It's an interesting but not earth-shattering result, and serves as a good reminder that the amount of energy we are taking in is inescapably important. The 20% HFCS group reduced their dietary fat intake significantly, and increased their added sugar intake. And yet, they lost more body fat and improved the measured health markers more than the control group (see table 2: the 20% HFCS group was supposedly consuming 46g fat and 234g CHO (95g from added sugars), while the control was consuming less total CHO (213g) and less added sugar (50g) - but more total calories). I was also surprised and somewhat scared to learn that half of America gets more than 20% of its total daily calories from fructose. Sugars in general and HFCS in particular may not be the poisons some claim they are, but that's still not a good idea.
Diet Calendar Entry for 09 August 2012:
|
3219 kcal
|
Fat: 108.71g | Prot: 187.93g | Carb: 412.82g.
Breakfast: sargento string cheese, strawberries, blueberries, almonds, carlson fish oil, vegetable medley, tomato, meijer cottage cheese, eggland's best large. Lunch: cocoa roast almonds, plum, spinach, california stir fry, tomato, eggland's best large, Subway 6 inch roast beef. Dinner: dannon light & fit toasted, carrot, heinz ketchup, eggland's best large, 96% lean beef. Snacks/Other: aunt millie's whole wheat, kraft colby jak, kashi golean crunch, banana, meijer lowfat cottage cheese, krema, banana peanut butter, dark chocolate dreams, fiber one chewy bar, fiber one 80, apple, extra gum. more...
|
|
 Comments
It would be nice if the study also reported the participant's comments on how the diet made them feel, whether they were always hungry, their ease or difficulty in staying within compliance of the diet plan, etc. I still like the fact that they are doing these studies and the information gathered is very useful.
09 Aug 12 by member: Eringiffin
|
Interesting point, Eringiffin. The study lasted only 12 weeks, but did suffer from a 35% dropout rate. The authors claimed that was in line with similar studies, but also had this to say: "Lack of compliance with the consumption of the prescribed amount of milk was the primary reason for participant attrition (n = 38 out of 85), but other reasons included participant unwillingness to commit to the time required (n = 21), intolerance to the milk or unwillingness to consume the amount prescribed (n = 15), Moved out of town (n = 4), pregnancy (n = 3) and general dissatisfaction n with the study (n = 4). Drop-out rates were similar across all five groups (Table 1)." So it seems there were a lot of participants who weren't thrilled about having to drink so much sugary milk. And in any event, there's nothing about the study claiming a -benefit- to added sugars. To the contrary, on a tight calorie budget, displacing more nutritious foods is a real risk.
09 Aug 12 by member: Nimm
|
Right, but maybe HFCS isn't the villain that it has been made out to be. I especially liked that bit about, "...the temporal association between HFCS and obesity ended in 1999, when HFCS use began to diminish..." In any case, trying to pinpoint one source for the rise of obesity seems kind of like an over-simplification.
09 Aug 12 by member: Eringiffin
|
I think Nimm's last sentence hit the nail on the head... When you use your calorie allotment to consume sugar of any kind in lieu of nutritionally superior whole foods or micronutrients, you miss big health benefits. I don't think sugar is evil, just empty calories. I appreciate your time in reporting this.
10 Aug 12 by member: Heidijoy
|
Eringriffin: "In any case, trying to pinpoint one source for the rise of obesity seems kind of like an over-simplification." I agree with this wholeheartedly. The world of popular fitness and nutrition seems very prone to reductionism - whether it's HFCS, fast food, sugar, carbohydrate, video games, grains, dairy, cable television, saturated fat, red meat, or whatever the villain du jour is. Context matters. So while I also agree that HFCS isn't nearly as dangerous as it's been made out to be in the popular media, I also think it's important to emphasize that doesn't mean it should be eaten in unlimited amounts (or at all) - even the most benign food can be overeaten and cause nutritional imbalances.
10 Aug 12 by member: Nimm
|
10 Aug 12 by member: Eringiffin
|
| |
|
|
| |
Submit a Comment
You must sign in to submit a comment
|
|
|
Other Related Links
Members
|
Nimm's weight history
|