Article: Is Sugar Toxic?

Nutrition
81

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up :wink:

let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.

It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.

just my observations[/quote]

You sound like those diet “gurus” who become guest speakers on Dr. Oz and wake up the soccer moms with “carbs are evil!” talk :slight_smile:

But the way you state that insinuates a false relationship between carbs and obesity. It’s like when Shugart says someone lost 20 lbs of FAT --because his waist SHRUNK!–when, really, they probably lost 6-8 lbs and the rest water, glycogen, muscle. Seriously, you will not be able to tell what proportion of the weight was FAT mass just because your pants are a little looser. That’s absurd. The best way to know for sure is to do the bodpod/dunk tank test, which is at least scientific.

Your observations only illustrate the abundance of carb sources and their prevalence in our diets. Abundance = cheap = easy access, easy to overeat. Technically, if meat was just as cheap and eaten in the same quantities (calorically equal), people should still gain weight, because carbs and protein have the same cals per gram of energy. Well, that’s my thinking and it’s probably not entirely accurate, because protein requires more calories to process it (up to 30%) so higher TEF.[/quote]

good luck overeating protein in comparison to carbs :wink:

I can house 2,000 cals easy of chocolate chip cookies, steak not a chance in hell
[/quote]

Speak for yourself I would have no problem overeating protein. For a reward or cheat day what ever you want to call it I went to a bar nearby and ate a 5lb burger in 28min. Won a t-shirt and got the burger for free. I was still hungry after so i decided to go to cold stone for dessert and got a gotta have it and ate all that.

It was a fun experience. Gotta live a little. People were shaking my hand after words. It was crazy. Not something to do every week but couple times a year do something crazy like that is a good time.

I was still hungry afterwords. I know the ice cream isn’t protein but I can easily put away a couple of pounds of meat and eat another couple of pounds a of meat a couple hours later. I can overeat any macro-nutrient no problem.

82

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up :wink:

let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.

It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.

just my observations[/quote]

You sound like those diet “gurus” who become guest speakers on Dr. Oz and wake up the soccer moms with “carbs are evil!” talk :slight_smile:

But the way you state that insinuates a false relationship between carbs and obesity. It’s like when Shugart says someone lost 20 lbs of FAT --because his waist SHRUNK!–when, really, they probably lost 6-8 lbs and the rest water, glycogen, muscle. Seriously, you will not be able to tell what proportion of the weight was FAT mass just because your pants are a little looser. That’s absurd. The best way to know for sure is to do the bodpod/dunk tank test, which is at least scientific.

Your observations only illustrate the abundance of carb sources and their prevalence in our diets. Abundance = cheap = easy access, easy to overeat. Technically, if meat was just as cheap and eaten in the same quantities (calorically equal), people should still gain weight, because carbs and protein have the same cals per gram of energy. Well, that’s my thinking and it’s probably not entirely accurate, because protein requires more calories to process it (up to 30%) so higher TEF.[/quote]

good luck overeating protein in comparison to carbs :wink:

I can house 2,000 cals easy of chocolate chip cookies, steak not a chance in hell
[/quote]

Speak for yourself I would have no problem overeating protein. For a reward or cheat day what ever you want to call it I went to a bar nearby and ate a 5lb burger in 28min. Won a t-shirt and got the burger for free. I was still hungry after so i decided to go to cold stone for dessert and got a gotta have it and ate all that.

It was a fun experience. Gotta live a little. People were shaking my hand after words. It was crazy. Not something to do every week but couple times a year do something crazy like that is a good time.

I was still hungry afterwords. I know the ice cream isn’t protein but I can easily put away a couple of pounds of meat and eat another couple of pounds a of meat a couple hours later. I can overeat any macro-nutrient no problem.[/quote]

most people aren’t gonna be wired that way. They won’t be able to go overboard on too much chicken breast if you wanna stick with leaner meats, nor house 500 cals worth of broccoli

83

i can eat significantly more calories if i have carbs with a meal…

so, i believe there is something to that…

84

I agree I can fit in more carbs. I am just saying I can overeat anything. Carbs are the easiest to overeat with. But I love all meat so I just tend to eat more of that anyway. Also the simpler the carb source the easier to over eat but that goes with out saying since most people in this discussion seem to be quite intelligent.

85

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up :wink:

let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.

It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.

just my observations[/quote]

You sound like those diet “gurus” who become guest speakers on Dr. Oz and wake up the soccer moms with “carbs are evil!” talk :slight_smile:

But the way you state that insinuates a false relationship between carbs and obesity. It’s like when Shugart says someone lost 20 lbs of FAT --because his waist SHRUNK!–when, really, they probably lost 6-8 lbs and the rest water, glycogen, muscle. Seriously, you will not be able to tell what proportion of the weight was FAT mass just because your pants are a little looser. That’s absurd. The best way to know for sure is to do the bodpod/dunk tank test, which is at least scientific.

Your observations only illustrate the abundance of carb sources and their prevalence in our diets. Abundance = cheap = easy access, easy to overeat. Technically, if meat was just as cheap and eaten in the same quantities (calorically equal), people should still gain weight, because carbs and protein have the same cals per gram of energy. Well, that’s my thinking and it’s probably not entirely accurate, because protein requires more calories to process it (up to 30%) so higher TEF.[/quote]

good luck overeating protein in comparison to carbs :wink:

I can house 2,000 cals easy of chocolate chip cookies, steak not a chance in hell
[/quote]

Speak for yourself I would have no problem overeating protein. For a reward or cheat day what ever you want to call it I went to a bar nearby and ate a 5lb burger in 28min. Won a t-shirt and got the burger for free. I was still hungry after so i decided to go to cold stone for dessert and got a gotta have it and ate all that.

It was a fun experience. Gotta live a little. People were shaking my hand after words. It was crazy. Not something to do every week but couple times a year do something crazy like that is a good time.

I was still hungry afterwords. I know the ice cream isn’t protein but I can easily put away a couple of pounds of meat and eat another couple of pounds a of meat a couple hours later. I can overeat any macro-nutrient no problem.[/quote]

most people aren’t gonna be wired that way. They won’t be able to go overboard on too much chicken breast if you wanna stick with leaner meats, nor house 500 cals worth of broccoli
[/quote]

Its true I might be an outlier. I do love leaner meats that is my normal diet. Chicken turkey and fish but since I am bulking once in a while crushing a big ass burger is quite fun.

Damn 500 cal of broccoli would be a lot. In my last meal of the day I eat about 1 lb and that isn’t close to 500cal I dont think at least. I dont really count vegetable calories.

86

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Speak for yourself I would have no problem overeating protein. For a reward or cheat day what ever you want to call it I went to a bar nearby and ate a 5lb burger in 28min. Won a t-shirt and got the burger for free. I was still hungry after so i decided to go to cold stone for dessert and got a gotta have it and ate all that.
[/quote]

This does nothing for your case. The burger was surrounded by sugar (bread) and covered with sugar (ketchup or other sauces). And then you went and ate more carbs.

When you eat the same number of calories of just meat alone come see us.

87

Meaningless because neither will ever be the case. Meat is way more filling than processed carbs - its very HARD to overeat meat, its very EASY to overeat carbs.

This whole “rationalize the problem with a totally illogical hypothetical” is absurd. Its like responding to a story about a heroin addict stealing to support his addiction by saying that a person could become so addicted to cigarettes that they would do the same thing. Could they? Maybe. Does anyone actually do that in the real world on planet earth? No.

No civilization that existed primarily on meat had anywhere NEAR the obesity or health problems that EVERY civilization that exists on processed carbohydrates does.

Could someone maybe if they tried really really hard become overweight eating only meat and fibrous vegetables? Maybe, but since no one ever will, why bother with the question - or, worse, use it to justify the abundance of processed carbohydrates in our diet?

88

[quote]etaco wrote:

If abundance expressed by cheapness were the answer to why people overeat then we wouldn’t see the poor being more obese on average than the wealthy. If I’m rich, then all food is cheap and available to me including meat so naturally I should be eating 9 steaks per day and getting the same diabetes as the person who is poor for whom only soda is cheap and available.[/quote]

Actually, that’s EXACTLY the reason (what I was trying to state, I mean) that more poor people may be obese on average than people in higher economic classes; cheaper foods usually tend to be SHIT nutritionally (boxed, canned, bagged…PROCESSED CARBS). And when you’re poor and can’t eat a good meal, you tend to GRAZE…and you tend to graze foods MADE for grazing (boxed, processed foods).

That’s what I was getting at.

When you’re rich (or at least middle class), you tend to have better food options AND you’re in a social bracket that might have stronger opinions on image due to what peers believe SHOULD be available to everyone (nutrition education, workout equipment, better foods). When you’re poor, the last thing you might give a shit about is if your neighbors don’t approve of your gut.

Obviously, one challenge of such debates is that what might be an isolated variable in ONE context, is confounded by other variables in a different context.

What might be a greater factor in obesity for poor people, might be less of a factor (and possibly one of several other factors) for rich(er) people.

89

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Actually, I am unusually qualified to speak on this subject. As most of the older posters know, I did an extensive amount of work with the Anabolic Diet WAY back when it first came out in 1995ish. I used it to bulk significantly over a period of two years, which not many I’ve ever talked to have tried. It was extremely difficult to get my 4500-5000 calories in during the week. You just do NOT want to eat…period. I did manage to do so though, but a funny thing happened… I ALWAYS weighed less on friday than I did 5 days earlier on monday. When the weekends would come, THATS when I would gain my weight. I was trying to gain weight during the week on high fat and protein and low carbs. I couldn’'t do it. I HAD to have the insulin recomp on saturday and sunday to pull it off. I just find it funny that we have all the arm chair theologians claiming this or that, but if you go try it on for size…you find out real fast real life is different.
[/quote]

I am really fucking drained from a long day, but please just confirm/deny if I’m reading your post right:

What you are speaking of is the weight fluctuation effect that “carb loading” / “Skip loading” folks have talked about, i.e. “reaching baseline weight” after a carb up. Right?

I recall reading elusive saying that, if you can’t hit baseline within 2-3 days (I think that was his timeframe) after a carbup, you likely overdid it.

Are you essentially speaking of this effect?

91

[quote]MODOK wrote:
In my case, it did not. I was eating 4500-5000 calories of fat and protein and not gaining a pound. On the weekend, I’d eat 5000 calories of a mixed diet/higher carbs and gain the weight that I wanted to gain for the week. [/quote]
It would be really interesting if you could piece out how much of the intra-week fluctuation was due to water gain and loss (which I bet was EPIC) and fat and muscle changes.

I don’t even know how you’d go about that if you were doing it currently, let alone now (because recall studies are so unscientific)

92

MODOK,

Would you say glycemic load has a significant impact on the storage properties of insulin?

To rephrase, would a carb source of GI 70-80 be more beneficial than one of GI 30-40, assuming gram total and GL are the same?

I ask because I prefer solid food sources for the carbs (rice, pasta) over a sugary drink or even one with maltodextrin/dextrose.

What do you think? Does it really matter for muscle building if you spike Insulin “x high” with source A versus source B, if total carb intake is the same between the two options?

Hope that made sense. I’m tired as fuck.

93

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Not really. Skiploading is for weight loss. I was using the Anabolic Diet to bulk up back in 1995-1997. I used it to go from a 175 lb weakling to a 255 lb T Rex over two years. What I was stating was it was very difficult to gain weight on the AD during the week (high fat, low carb days). I always lost weight. I had to have the huge insulin spike on Sa-Su to hold the week’s weight gain. I was saying this inreference to the “excess calories of any kind will make you fat” line.

In my case, it did not. I was eating 4500-5000 calories of fat and protein and not gaining a pound. On the weekend, I’d eat 5000 calories of a mixed diet/higher carbs and gain the weight that I wanted to gain for the week. Insulin (and its buddy IGF) is the master storage hormone. Without it putting on weight is unbelievably difficult. And I’m an endomorph if there has ever been one.[/quote]

Hey Modok not to hijack the thread or anything but do you feel an AD type approach is better for bulking than just outright eating loads of calories throughout the day with constant insulin spikes. I ask because I love cyclic keto diets for cutting while retaining muscle but never thought about using it to bulk. I love my carbs and like to eat them all day long when I want to increase strength and size, but do tend to put on more fat than I like.
Is AD the way to go for a “cleaner” bulk?
Also how did you get through wokouts during the week with no carbs, or did you have some pre or peri workout. Thanks.

94

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]as wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Not really. Skiploading is for weight loss. I was using the Anabolic Diet to bulk up back in 1995-1997. I used it to go from a 175 lb weakling to a 255 lb T Rex over two years. What I was stating was it was very difficult to gain weight on the AD during the week (high fat, low carb days). I always lost weight. I had to have the huge insulin spike on Sa-Su to hold the week’s weight gain. I was saying this inreference to the “excess calories of any kind will make you fat” line.

In my case, it did not. I was eating 4500-5000 calories of fat and protein and not gaining a pound. On the weekend, I’d eat 5000 calories of a mixed diet/higher carbs and gain the weight that I wanted to gain for the week. Insulin (and its buddy IGF) is the master storage hormone. Without it putting on weight is unbelievably difficult. And I’m an endomorph if there has ever been one.[/quote]

Hey Modok not to hijack the thread or anything but do you feel an AD type approach is better for bulking than just outright eating loads of calories throughout the day with constant insulin spikes. I ask because I love cyclic keto diets for cutting while retaining muscle but never thought about using it to bulk. I love my carbs and like to eat them all day long when I want to increase strength and size, but do tend to put on more fat than I like.
Is AD the way to go for a “cleaner” bulk?
Also how did you get through wokouts during the week with no carbs, or did you have some pre or peri workout. Thanks.[/quote]

You’ve been around since October of 2002 as well. One of the Founding Fathers!

In my situation, yes I believe it was very much superior for bulking. It allows for the consumption of many more calories for people like me (endomorphs) through the week with a massive insulin spike on the weekend (See my response to Ponce about the insulin spike) that delivers a profound anabolic rebound.

Like I mentioned in the AD thread, I literally busted out of my skin on the diet after several years of trying to make meaningful progress the conventional way. I gained 75 or 80 lbs of very clean weight over two years ( I still wore 34 inch waist pants). It probably isn’t for everyone, but it suits my personality and body type perfectly.
[/quote]

Ok thanks alot. Might give it a try when I’m done cutting. I’m actually a skinny/fat person by nature making it hard for me to handle carbs and also difficulty in gaining size which makes these types of diets better for me, including diets similar to Lean Gains where carbs are centered mainly around workouts.
One last quick question if you don’t mind. Do you have any carbs pre workout during the low carb stage like in a TKD?
After Barardi recommended that Gatorade/Whey protocol awhile back I could never train any other way lol, strength and pumps always good.
During my keto phase I use the BCAA method pre workout and it seems to get me by (almost feels like I ingested carbs), but not as big of a punch as the gatorade. Just wondering how you get through it.

95

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
MODOK,

Would you say glycemic load has a significant impact on the storage properties of insulin?

To rephrase, would a carb source of GI 70-80 be more beneficial than one of GI 30-40, assuming gram total and GL are the same?

I ask because I prefer solid food sources for the carbs (rice, pasta) over a sugary drink or even one with maltodextrin/dextrose.

What do you think? Does it really matter for muscle building if you spike Insulin “x high” with source A versus source B, if total carb intake is the same between the two options?

Hope that made sense. I’m tired as fuck.[/quote]

Get some damn sleep! lol

Yes, all those things do matter it certain contexts. First, remember the AUC of insulin for a given amount of carbohydrate (x) is always going to be the same (y), whether or not the glycemic index is high or not. So if you eat 500 g of carbs (glucose) its not going to matter so much about the insulin- the same amount will be released whether its grape juice of pasta (excluding fructose portion).

However, the AD is set up so that you eat high GI foods immediately upon conclusion of the low carb phase, then gradually switch over to complex carbs over the next 8-12 hours and end the load with complex carbs. It is my theory that this works well due to the rapid up-regulation and translocation of the GLUT4 receptor when you have a sudden insulin spike (since its an insulin-regulated glucose transporter).

Once they have been upregulated to their maximum capacity by the insulin spike you can switch over to more complex carbs and still reap the benefits. Whereas if you don’t get the initial large insulin spike, you will not up-regulate GLUT4 to its maximum capacity.
[/quote]

I don’t know how much you know about intermittent fasting. But for most its a 16 hour fast followed by a 8 hr feed. Do you think that the same effect is created? The large insulin spike (from a large carb meal to break the fast and after a workout) would upregulated the GLUT4 transporters and then the next carb meal in the 8hr window would be able to benifit from this? Your thoughts?

96

Thanks.

What I was getting at–and should’ve just said–was that I’ve read people claim that taking MD Muscle Growth instead of Surge Recovery hasn’t slowed down the “progress” and they recover just fine; all the benefits of Surge Recovery they seem to get with MD Muscle Growth. At least, if not those two products, then conceptually, they say it hasn’t made a difference (given that carb types in each are supposed to be different, e.g. fast vs slow) so long as carb/cal intake is kept constant.

I even put a bit of fat in my PWO shake and don’t think it “slows down” anything. I just try to get in my “century shake”:

100g protein
100g carbs
some fat (coconnut milk, some evoo)
cinnamon
enzymes
almond milk
4 omega3 eggs
some fiber and mushroom powder (BulletProofTiger knows)

= keeps me bossy.

80 lbs of lean mass in 2 years is no joke. Inspiring.

97

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
MODOK,

Would you say glycemic load has a significant impact on the storage properties of insulin?

To rephrase, would a carb source of GI 70-80 be more beneficial than one of GI 30-40, assuming gram total and GL are the same?

I ask because I prefer solid food sources for the carbs (rice, pasta) over a sugary drink or even one with maltodextrin/dextrose.

What do you think? Does it really matter for muscle building if you spike Insulin “x high” with source A versus source B, if total carb intake is the same between the two options?

Hope that made sense. I’m tired as fuck.[/quote]

Get some damn sleep! lol

Yes, all those things do matter it certain contexts. First, remember the AUC of insulin for a given amount of carbohydrate (x) is always going to be the same (y), whether or not the glycemic index is high or not. So if you eat 500 g of carbs (glucose) its not going to matter so much about the insulin- the same amount will be released whether its grape juice of pasta (excluding fructose portion).

However, the AD is set up so that you eat high GI foods immediately upon conclusion of the low carb phase, then gradually switch over to complex carbs over the next 8-12 hours and end the load with complex carbs. It is my theory that this works well due to the rapid up-regulation and translocation of the GLUT4 receptor when you have a sudden insulin spike (since its an insulin-regulated glucose transporter).

Once they have been upregulated to their maximum capacity by the insulin spike you can switch over to more complex carbs and still reap the benefits. Whereas if you don’t get the initial large insulin spike, you will not up-regulate GLUT4 to its maximum capacity.
[/quote]

I don’t know how much you know about intermittent fasting. But for most its a 16 hour fast followed by a 8 hr feed. Do you think that the same effect is created? The large insulin spike (from a large carb meal to break the fast and after a workout) would upregulated the GLUT4 transporters and then the next carb meal in the 8hr window would be able to benifit from this? Your thoughts?[/quote]

Well first, I am continually amazed at people who are making themselves rich by marketing concepts which I have used for years and thought pretty much everyone either used or knew about. First it was the “Paleo” people getting rich by adding vegetables to the Atkins Diet now its Mark Berkhan with this “Lean Gains” stuff. I’m happy that they are making money off of it and spreading the concepts further.

I’ve used the 16/8 fast protocol during my diets for about 15 years. The rationale is a longer period of a catecholamine-dominated physiological state. I usually eat my first meal around 2 pm on a fast, and the last at 10 or 11 pm. All the benefits that he claims, I have found to be true. Stretching that “fast” period as far as possible is tremendously effective for fat loss. I have never tried the concept for maintenance/bulking. But the science is solid. Yes I do believe that, if the insulin spike is large enough on that first meal post-fast, that it would carry over somewhat to the next meal in the scenario you mentioned.
[/quote]

That seems to be a trend in a lot of things. Add some slight adjustments and rename it something fancy and make some money.

Thank you very much for the respons. The science all makes sense to me but as many people say studies and science don’t always work in real life. Its good to here some real evidence from someone who has gotten big and has experience and has a damn good education.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Who do you think would do the best with the AD diet (like you use)? Someone who is less carb tolerent? Just your opinion…

98

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Well first, I am continually amazed at people who are making themselves rich by marketing concepts which I have used for years and thought pretty much everyone either used or knew about. First it was the “Paleo” people getting rich by adding vegetables to the Atkins Diet now its Mark Berkhan with this “Lean Gains” stuff. mentioned.
[/quote]

That’s why you need to get off your ass and start writing articles - you let these guys beat you to the punch. ; )

99

I’ve been working with the CKD myself which is pretty much the Anabolic Diet, been doing it for about 3 weeks now. I was 130lbs @ 5’8 and super lean when I started, eating high fat moderate protein and low carb, basically was in ketosis for 2 months straight (pictures on my account.)

Friday before my carb load I was 133lbs (which is already +3lbs from where I started), currently sitting at 141 now. A lot of this is glycogen weight with the accompanying water molecules, but I’m definitely seeing some real muscle growth as well.

Constant carbing just makes me gain bodyfat (I was almost 150lbs before), so far this seems to be good for avoiding excess fat gain.

Also, Gary Taubes is an amazing science writer and MODOK really knows his stuff. The discussion earlier in this thread was great though I never doubted Taubes’ methodology or the message he’s trying to get across, he’s absolutely correct.

100

I am no super intelligent science but it seems to me that Taubes whole insulin and sugar is evil argument is flawed on such a basic level its almost silly. Maybe someone can clarify. As I understand it, Taubes believes insulin is major fat storage hormone. Taubes believes that sugar jacks up insulin and therefore all this excess insulin being generated by evil sugar consumption is responsible for excess fat storage. I could buy into this idea if both protein and fat did not cause an insulin response. However as I believe most here know, protein can generate a huge insulin response, with some proteins and aminos causing a similar response to those evil sugars. So what gives.