Years ago I worked with a very fragile Veterinary Tech. She was engaged and the wedding was coming up soon. It’s all she talked about. Just weeks before the big day she found out that her fiancé had been cheating with a coworker on his “business trips.” She was devastated. At the time she was probably about 20lbs overweight which she had been trying hard (and unsuccessfully) to shed. She left her boyfriend and went into a deep funk. During this time she ate mostly Cadbury Milk chocolate bars - the big ones. Sometimes two or three per day and only that. She did this for just over a month, I think. She was basically just surviving on whatever nutritional value these bars have. I can guess that she was consuming roughly 1200 calories per day and a whole lot of sugar. The weight melted off. Every pound she wanted to lose and more.
I’m not going to get into this one much other than to point the talking past each other going on here and part of why.
- Calories listed on labels and in resources are often quite a bit off.
-
Most people do a horrible job at calorie counting even according to the flawed numbers.
-
Calculated estimates of daily weight maintenance calories are often extremely off as well.
-
The impacts of diet and differing amounts of weight loss on metabolism and non-exercise activity thermogenesis are significant and extremely variable but usually unknowns for any individual. The type of calories in impacts the number of calories out as does achieved weight loss.
Thus “calories are calories” and it is very possible for someone to eat an amount of food with a listed amount of calories that adds up to X have a calculated daily calories expended of Y and have weight loss or gain be very different than differences between X and Y would suggest one should have. (And that is ignoring the complicating issues of water obligatorily stored with glycogen and the difference between calorie density of body mass fat and fat-free mass.)
My system is simple: If you eat only when you are hungry, eat whatever you want, and walk every day for a year, you couldn’t be fat if you wanted to.
This has worked for everyone I know who has tried it.
if you’re looking for an easy way to cut back caloric intake - getting rid of ‘regular’ coke is a given - those are what are commonly called “empty calories” for a reason - you simply dont realize that every can of pop is ~240 calories - since I drink a 6pack a day, thats 1200 extra calories. (as an example).
Switch to diet - you instantly reduce 1200 calories a day.
Sugar or not - its the calories.
Sugar is not “evil”- but it is a quick way to add up alot of calories for (sometimes) little gain - swtiching to ‘fruit juices’ is not always the answer (vs ‘pop’) since they have the same net affect - loads of ‘empty’ calories that you don’t realize you’re consuming.
This seems hard, and leaves no mechanism for blaming something else when someone doesn’t follow it and gains weight.
The OP has some right ideas and also some wrong ones. The major problem is that he is conflating several different concepts:
#1) If you expend more calories than you consume-of any type-you will lose weight. Conversely, if you consume more calories than you expend-of any type-you will gain weight.
#2) Different people have different caloric needs even if they are the same size and weight. People who have lost weight tend to need fewer calories in a day.
#3) The calories listed on products can be inaccurate both because the government allows for leeway in labeling and because of how the body metabolizes them.
#4) Sugar calories can differ from other calories not because of a difference in thermogenesis or because the body stores them differently but because eating foods with a high glycemic index creates a more rapid insulin peak which increases appetite so people who eat foods higher in sugars tend to have increased appetites and to eat more.
#5) Proteins and fats then to create a more delayed and slower insulin peak. They also tend to be digested more slowly which creates a more lasting feeling of fullness which means people tend to eat less.
#6) Recent studies have shown roughly equivalent weight loss with high carb/low fat diets and high fat/low carb diets; people benefit most from an eating plan that works for them.
#7) Evaluation of people who claim they are following restricted diets and cannot lose weight show that most of these people eat roughly twice the amount of calories that they think they do.
#8) No studies show any weight gain when calories are restricted to less than metabolic rate, regardless of the source of these calories.
Taking the above into account, note that added sugars have minimal nutrition value and do stimulate insulin peaks which increase appetite. Therefore, a diet restricting added sugars may be more nutritious and also make it easier to lose weight. For this reason, the OP is on the right track. However, if he feels that he can eat the same amount of calories and lose weight simply by restricting sugars, I think he is wrong and may find this out the hard way. Since such a diet may be overall more healthy in the long run, however, I do not see a problem with pursuing it as an experiment.
Unfortunately, most people who are overweight have trouble distinguishing between true appetite and hunger. In addition, their hunger threshold may be set differently from so-called “normal people”. Finally, no matter how much you walk, if you want to increase your metabolic weight you need to increase muscle mass.
An excellent synopsis, thanks psychobunny. Points #4 and #5 bear repeating as often as needed until they are understood.
#7 too!
Fwiw, I’m fully on board with all of that - it just doesn’t talk too much about my blind spot and downfall (which has been not regulating non-natural added sugar intake). This is what I read yesterday and noted down:
On sugar, this is my fav link so far:
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
I lost 79 pounds on Weight Watchers when I was 18 (I was 307lbs when I graduated high school and lost down to 228 in just seven months on WW). I’m currently on ‘The Plan’ (WW) again 22 years later. At 40, the pounds don’t fall off like they did when I was young. But I have lost almost 30 pounds in the last five months. I still have about 35 more to go. =(
I have modified the WW plan somewhat to reduce carb and overall calorie consumption. In place of at least one meal each day, I have a smoothie made from unsweetened peach and mango, spinach, kale, brocolli sprouts, ice and coconut oil. I’ve actually grown to like the taste!
I’ve also seen some significant health improvements over the past six months. Nine months ago, I was pre-diabetic (A1C of 5.9), my LDL cholesterol was 170 and overall cholesterol was 220 and I was pre-hypertensive. As of two weeks ago, my A1C is down to 5.6 (just out of pre-diabetic status), LDL is 148 and overall cholesterol is about 210. My BP is still pre-hypertensive, but down from an average of 136/84 to 128/78.
Anyway, my point was to acknowledge that the WW plan is very good…and even better if you modify it a bit! :D;)
I saw it yesterday (Wednesday!) evening, and I agree. It was already preaching to the choir with me, but still. I don’t see how anyone can watch ten minutes of that thing and still come away with “a calorie is a calorie”.
I mean, I’m not aware of any reputable scientist who thinks sugar is the only way people get fat. And I’m not thinking there’s any who says it will make EVERYONE fat. I’ve got a huge sweet tooth, and my childhood was 24/7 sugar. I remember eating spoonfuls of pure granulated sugar whenever I’d get bored. I’ve never been overweight. But I just assume this means I am lucky. (And perhaps any day now I’ll find out that I have diabetes, despite my “healthy” weight.)
I view the recent findings about red meat/processed meat in a similar way. Not everyone’s going to get cancer from these things. Maybe not even most. But that doesn’t mean these things are safe to eat in all quantities, or that an individual should just assume they aren’t in the unlucky minority. Perhaps all those signs of aging that we accept as perfectly “normal” could be staved off just by eating a less of the “bad stuff”. Certainly feeling physically well helps with maintaining a healthy weight.
Preach it, preach it!
That’s why it takes so long. The first three months I did this were absolute HELL. Not only did I have a hard time recognizing true hunger, I realized I had absolutely no clue what I really liked to eat. The only thing I knew about food was calorie counts.
Eventually, I realized when I was hungry, and started to know what I liked and what I didn’t like to eat. It took a while, but I stopped eating my emotions, and started walking when I was upset, angry, sad, whatever.
Food cures hunger and nothing else.
I like this … a clear understanding that this is a witnessing thread. 
Been there done that an won’t get into any debates here but the #4 and #5, the whole Taubian insulin creed, are actually and pretty shaky evidentiary grounds. Some high carb foods have a slow and not too high insulin peak and protein is a very potent insulin stimulus. And satiety does not necessarily follow flatter insulin peak or glucose levels which do not necessarily correlate.
Not that mechanism really matters much … as with religious and secular-based belief systems, what matters most is #6 … “people benefit most from an eating plan that works for them.” And only those affiliated with the sugar industry will argue “for” added sugar.
Plausible: Consumption of sugar may make make you want to eat more.
Plausible: Certain people’s metabolism may be much more efficient than others’ at turning sugar into fat.
Not plausible: Calories burned plus calories converted to fat may be greater than calories consumed.
The way around that is to not buy anything that may have added sugar. No cans, packages or anything else processed. Learn to cook so you know exactly what goes into your food and you’ll never have that worry again.
Going to watch Fed Up in the next few days. Thanks for the recommendation! I just finished watching Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and am in the middle of the sequel.
In theory, makes sense. In practice, it’s a lot harder than it sounds. I ask myself EVERY TIME I eat if I’m legitimately hungry, and for whatever reason it is a difficult question for me to answer. I “feel” hungry, but I’m actually just bored. I “feel” hungry, but in reality I’m thirsty.
I don’t know if there’s a physiological reason for this or if I’m just deluding myself, but it is not such an easy question for me.
It’s pretty difficult to avoid all added sugar but yeah, on to the new WHO target of under 30g / 125 cals of sugar a day. Had rice and some veggies tonight. Eating more fish, also.
I think that’s right, Im getting that sense that, once you have this ‘real cooking’ sorted, you never have to worry again - even to the extent your appetite normalises (without so much added sugar) so you’re not obsessed all the time. That’s been really neat.
Pretty much a week into this lightbulb moment now…
The huge thing for me was being conscious of calories, eating reasonably well in that context, exercising, and still not having control over where my body was going. It just didn’t make sense for like 20 years and that was a huge ongoing frustration.
All that’s gone, just lifted off me. I know I’m in control, I know the weight will shift and I don’t even have to go on some fringe/hip diet - all I have to do is keep under two daily male limits:
2500 total calories, of which only 32g/125 calories can be sugar. Not even going to count natural sugars (like in fruit), just add up whatever the labels say and keep it under 32. Take off 20% for a woman.
Like a Big Mac is 10 (in the UK), a slice of bread somewhere between 1 and 2, etc, etc (no sugar in soft drinks - sugar fee versions only. Not that sweetener stuff,though that’s a personal choice).
Yep, I’m having to change a lot about what I eat (steamed spinach is now a staple, and pasta again) and my overall routine, but that was no way to live. It’s like a form of freedom now 
If you don’t understand what you’re doing wrong, really - control your added sugar and that might be the whole deal!
I’m curious why you don’t count the sugar in fruit. Apparently, an apple has 18g of sugar, so just eating one apple would be more than half of your “sugar limit”