1. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. **NEW** BL11 - Orange, Red & Infrared Therapy Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Charcoal Soap - For Deep Cleansing
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Organic Cocoa Powder
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

Drinking Coke Freely Quadruples Calorie Intake WITHOUT Weight Gain

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Mar 18, 2016.

  1. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    9,720
    Gender:
    Female
  2. nullredvector

    nullredvector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    UPS
    Location:
    USA
    @haidut is it true what these critics say that fructose is harmful to person loaded with PUFA?

    The other criticism was that it could be stress hormones, but then I would expect some marker of that to have shown up.
     
  3. Xisca

    Xisca Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,212
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Canary Spain
    I also notice ORL issues wth sugar, even worse with sweet dairies when cow and industrial at least.
     
  4. lexis

    lexis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2014
    Messages:
    412
    Coca cola and aspirin used to be the first home remedy for most illnesses
     
  5. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    I missed this thread the first time it was posted :bigtears:.

    Firstly, no the rats weren't eating 2,000kcal a day :banghead:. How this is possible is beyond any explanation. The last graph for Total Calorie Intake meant "Total Calorie Intake over the course of 8 weeks, per 100g body weight". This is such a confusing number, but it's obvious that a 2,000kcal a day is impossible for a rat ....

    If you really want an estimate of how much calories these rats were consuming, take a rough 200g bodyweight rat in the full-sugar Cola Cola group (R), use the final 30g/100g liquid intake => 60g of liquid a day, use the supplied values for soft drink composition at 21g carbohydrates per 200ml, assume 1g/mL fluid density, and you have 21 * 60/200 = 6.3g of sugar from Coca Cola, which is about 25kcal.

    I have no clue how the researchers came up with that chart, but it is confusing, and not useful.

    As far I'm concerned, the Coca Cola fed rats weighed slightly more, were fatter (see Table 3, and do not confuse Triglyceride concentration with Fat Mass -- the Fructose fed rats clearly had greater mass of fat per 100g bodyweight).

    The NEFA and Free Triglycerides in the fructose fed rats were much much higher than the other groups .... This cannot be seen as a good thing. Will this affect the rats negatively? Likely, especially since De-novo Lipogenesis happens much (much!) more readily in rats, and elongase activity is similarly much much higher -- these NEFA were likely unsaturated.

    Can any of this be extrapolated to humans? Nope :android:.

    We already have better data regarding fructose consumption in actual humans. I've stated my opinions here before, and I think overloading the body with fructose is never a good idea.

    ....
     
  6. ecstatichamster

    ecstatichamster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    5,371
    Anecdotally I see a lot of thin people drinking a lot of soft drinks. Always have. Fat people drink them too. But I believe they can raise metabolism. I don't write off this study so easily. There have been others. The researchers expected obese rats and didn't get them.
     
  7. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    9,720
    Gender:
    Female
    That makes more sense, thanks.
     
  8. schultz

    schultz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,610
    The actual amount calories the rats ate is irrelevant. The interesting point is that the rats in the soft drink group ate significantly more calories than the other two groups. From the study...

    "The caloric intake of the R group animals in this study was approximately four times higher than that of the L and C group animals. However, there was no significant difference in body weight."

    The researchers attributed this to the caffeine in the drink......

    The Coca-Cola also had the CO2 removed. :problem:

    I assume the drink didn't have added vitamins and minerals. On top of this, the rats in the coke group ate less food, further displacing micro nutrients. Simply adding zinc to the coke could have caused less weight gain. Adding vitamins and minerals would likely make a difference.

    Lastly, are there controlled human studies like this? It would be nice to see studies on humans where they eat a controlled diet with or without added coke. None of this food recall junk where the people who consume the soft drinks are also the same people who tend to also eat fast food and other crap.
     
  9. paymanz

    paymanz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,617
    Gender:
    Male
    is that study based on fructose sweetened coke or sucrose?!

    you know there is big difference between them!
     
  10. Xisca

    Xisca Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,212
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Canary Spain
    Ho interesting, which rice is better?

    I also have issues with starches, though I am bettering with time.
    And as I was already out sugar when I realized I had to go starch free....
    It harmed me, but thanks god I had kept fruits and bananas!
    I want to use rice and potatoes now....

    For me, sugar triggers tonsils, throat, sinus, bronchis....
     
  11. lexis

    lexis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2014
    Messages:
    412
    Eating grated coconut kernel with starch offsets the problems with starches
     
  12. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    We got signs of "metabolic obesity" in the rats ;) , meaning that the rats fed the extra sugar were trying to reject energy from their cells, which lead to the accumulation of those biomarkers in serum and adipose tissue. Cellular energy overload is the root cause of diabetes, with obesity being the healthy response to that overload (ie: storing that energy in adipose tissue), and diabetes being the "failure to get fat", and thus causing lack of regulation of metabolic substrate.

    Why I do not hold this study up to any credence is because it was clearly somewhat of an overfeeding study (given that there were a large number of the Coca Cola fed rats which had higher body mass than controls), and it is very clear that carbohydrate overconsumption in rats is very very different from carbohydrate over-consumption in humans.

    Your point about lean vs obese people has been well studied, and it is very clear that when it comes to carbohydrate consumption, body composition is the deciding factor.

    For example: De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women

    Note that "lean women" here wasn't really "lean" from an insulin sensitivity perspective:

    The physical characteristics (x̅ ± SD) of the 2 subject groups were as follows

    Body weight, body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2), and %BF were significantly greater (P < 0.01, Student's t test) in the obese subjects (body weight, 81.0 ± 4.5 kg; BMI, 31 ± 4.0; %BF, 44.8 ± 4.6%) than in the lean subjects (body weight, 65.6 ± 6.0 kg; BMI, 25 ± 1.0; %BF, 35.1 ± 5.6%).
    These were also older subjects (50+ years old, which in this case is relevant, because (peri-)menopause can become a confounder).

    The results were more De novo Lipogenesis (DNL) in the obese group -- De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women , and less in the "lean" group, which again, I do not consider "lean" from an insulin sensitising perspective. A true "lean woman" from the perspective of insulin signalling would probably be at least in the 25-27% body fat range.

    Still, we see a spectrum of differential response to overfeeding of carbohydrate of any form in this study (both glucose and sucrose), and that differential becomes larger and larger the more different the body composition gets.

    Example: this study with men at 15% body fat (which is considered "lean" from an insulin sensitivity perspective) vs 26+% body fat man showed an even larger skew (see column "f" for percentage DNL, which is clearly much higher in the fatter men) -- Postprandial de novo lipogenesis and metabolic changes induced by a high-carbohydrate, low-fat meal in lean and overweight men

    And of course, there is the classic metabolic ward study at the other end of the extreme, whereby you take young, lean Men, and then feed up tons of sugar, and only see DNL after huge intakes -- 475g EXCESS carbohydrate (they were eating more like 1000g carbs total) required to produce 150g fat, and all that fat was lost after 3 days of a low calorie Protein Sparing Modified Fast: Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man. - PubMed - NCBI

    ----

    We must pause to ask what De Novo Lipogenesis means here. IMO, it is a sign of one of 2 things:

    - There is not enough fat in the diet (from the body's perspective), thus requiring synthesis of said fatty acids. In the right context, this is perfectly fine.

    - There is BOTH too much energetic substrate in the form of carbohydrates, and the inability to store them, thus requiring the dispose of these carbohydrates. This is always a sign of dysregulation, and the body's attempts to combat it.

    Again, rats are not relevant here, because they have much higher PUFA requirements, and will synthesise fatty acids much more readily from carbohydrates (many people cite 10x more DNL in rats, which is accurate).

    Also note that "energetic overload" must be viewed from the perspective of individual components in the system. eg: Fructose has the ability to preferentially overload the liver. The same goes with MCTs (which go straight to the hepatic portal vein).

    Chronic Overload is not a good thing.

    ----

    Sidenote: what happens when you feed a 10% fat diet to lean men, and then varying sucrose composition between 75% and 30%? -- Sign In

    The (very!) high sucrose fed group had much more DNL, much higher fasting Insulin, higher serum triglycerides, etc ... all while being weight stable. (See all the Tables in the paper. The comparison of Very high sucrose vs just high sucrose is Diet 1 vs Diet 2).

    Again, lean subjects, which is key to the response to carbohydrate modulation, and even here, more sucrose led to what I clearly see as a localised energetic overload to specific tissues, and the accompanying attempt to shuttle that excess into storage form (fat).

    Will these subjects have much negative side effects? Likely Not (though the increased fasting insulin is not ideal). These synthesised fatty acids are saturated fatty acids, and since they were in energetic balance with no weight gain, there is no chronic signal to continually try and store more and more energy (which is the key determinant of diseases like diabetes).

    But if you put them into energetic excess, and do it long enough, then the body is forced to respond by trying to push that balance downward (getting rid of excess energy). Some people will do this better than others (see this article), but this cannot be seen to be an ideal state.

    ----

    "Some sugar good" does not imply "more sugar better". There are clear limits to the ability of the body to deal with sugar, with negative consequences in excess.

    What defines "excess sugar" is then going to depend on multiple factors, but body composition seems to be the largest factor.

    ....
     
  13. PeatThemAll

    PeatThemAll Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    280
    For a while, I was thinking this might be the Peaty equivalent of Kempner's Rice Diet. So much left out yet so many upsides!
     
  14. nullredvector

    nullredvector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    UPS
    Location:
    USA
    can you elaborate? how/etc

    Is most of your post talking about CICO and carb-insulin hypothesis, ie, a need to consciously restrict?
     
  15. raypeatclips

    raypeatclips Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,532
    @tyw Not sure if you mentioned this elsewhere, but what are your thoughts on high potato diet?
     
  16. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Not about Calories-in-Calories-Out (CICO) / Energy balance per se, but it does have relevance. Most of the Fructose that you eat goes to the liver for processing. (NOTE: yes, I know that "some" fructose is used by cells other than the liver. I have yet to see anything disputing the fact that at least 50-70% of fructose gets to the liver before any other systems have a pass at it)

    It is then fair to say that Fructose excess is determined by how much the liver is capable of processing. This is a complicated measure, and there are many factors that come into play.

    Basic examples:

    - You ate a lot of carbs right before bedtime the night before, liver is already full on glycogen. 100g of sugar at Breakfast is too much to fill liver stores => acute energetic overload

    - You drank too much alcohol, and liver sez "no moar, I m crunk'd :hilarious:"

    Of course, this also means that 100g sucrose (50g fructose) spread through the day is "more manageable" from a pure input/output perspective, versus 100g in a single sitting. That's the difference of the liver seeing 50g fructose all at once, and needing to process it right there and then, vs the liver seeing say 20g fructose in the morning, dealing with it (and using some of it) by noon, and then seeing another 20g, and then dealing with that.

    Obviously, lots more factors come into play, like what you ate earlier in the day.

    Sidenote: which is also why something like the Glycemic Index is only useful at the very best for viewing the first meal / on an empty stomach, and conditions which mimic an empty stomach (eg: hard training athletes, who may deplete a large portion of their prior meal over the course of training).​

    Regardless, if one is consistently overloading the system with food energetic substrate, then the body is consistently having to deal with that excess. This is a question of degree of course, and some variance is expected -- relative excess during the day, and relative depletion during the night.

    This is where I will disagree with the practice of trying to eat as much as possible -- this is the very definition of chronic energetic overload. In that sense, yes, CICO becomes important, and anything that the body cannot use has to be dealt with somehow (either through storage, or through other disposal means). I will therefore generally be a proponent of eating an amount geared towards improvement of body composition, followed by body mass maintenance once a healthy body composition is reached.

    As a final aside, most people here know that I like Chris Masterjohn when it comes to explaining certain basics of biology. His recent podcast regarding this topic is helpful -- When Fat People Can’t Get Fat Enough and Lean People Get Fat in All the Wrong Places


    If you're talking about the various attempts at a potato-only diet, then I will say that it is generally imbalanced from a macro-nutritional perspective, and not ideal for chronic consumption.

    If we're just talking about eating a lot of potatoes (eg: 1-2kg of potatoes a day), then I will first say that if one has specific sensitivities to nightshades, and thus potatoes, then eating a lot of potatoes is not good .....

    Amylopectin vs Amylose content of potatoes were discussed in this thread -- https://raypeatforum.com/community/...uided-war-on-carbohydrates.11010/#post-145991

    If one subscribes to the "fast digestion is better" line of thinking, then waxy potatoes are preferred by this metric.

    IMO, almost all issues with potatoes are exhibited at the level of the GI tract and immune system (with the rare exception of electrolyte imbalances in people with pre-existing conditions). If a person does not react negatively at that level, then potatoes are just yet another glucose source, and the dose of glucose should be calibrated towards the glucose tolerance of the individual.

    As usual, I don't believe in generic "good foods" vs "bad foods", and it will come down to the individual to experiment. In the case of potatoes, any gastric or immune distress happens fairly quickly (noticeable within 1-2 days at most), and should be a sign that potatoes are not well tolerated at that point in time (though in the future, it may be fine, and perhaps in smaller doses, they are fine).

    ....
     
  17. Jarman

    Jarman Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    @tyw it's interesting that you don't recommend high sugar and calorie consumption. Most of what I hear here is to consume a lot of sugar, less/no starch and minimum of 3000 calories per day to meet cronometer requirement.

    Maybe that's why there's a lot of people here gaining weight, myself included? These ones really concern me: 6 Months Into Peating, I Get Diabetes and Did I Diabetes Myself? HYEEEELP!

    Thanks to your recommendation, I abandoned sugar and replaced it with white, short-grained rice and lost weight back to my ideal weight. Of course, I always clean it first with filtered water to remove the starch and arsenic deposit out. Pretty common practice in Asian countries in prepping their dishes.

    What do you think about calorie restriction? I read that Okinawan have Hara Hachi Bun Me, which is to eat only to 80% full. Is that why they tend to live longer than most of us? Plenty of centenarians in Okinawa.

    I read so many recent researches saying good things about calorie restriction, even Ray Peat seems to like it, too: Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic? and Regeneration and degeneration: Types of inflammation change with aging.

    I also posted a question about metabolism and longevity here: Higher Metabolism, Temperature And Pulse And Lower TSH Associated With Higher Mortality maybe it's somehow relevant to calorie restriction?

    Do you think instead of consuming the Cronometer requirement of 3000+ calorie per day, we should instead engage in Hara Hachi Bun Me eating style, consuming only 80% of our calorie intake? I read somewhere that calorie restriction depletes PUFA and preserves high DHEA for youthfulness without the need of DHEA supplementation.
     
  18. paymanz

    paymanz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,617
    Gender:
    Male
    @Jarman no way sugar(especially sucrose) being more fattening than starches!and it doesnt make you diabetic, thats it at least if what ray thinks matters to you!

    and i never heard ray recommend calorie restriction, in that article he only said any benefits from CR probably comes from limited fat(pufa) intake , and somewhere else he also said CR may benefit by limiting some amino acids.

    lower food intake = lower toxin get into body
     
  19. WestCoaster

    WestCoaster Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2016
    Messages:
    130
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Fire Fighter
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I don't post often here, but what tyw is saying and what your realizing it seems is what is true for most people. IMO, the body's response to diet in gaining weight is telling the person, you have excess caloric consumption and/or you are metabolically compromised; therefore if people who are "peating" are gaining weight hand over fist, then your body is basically telling you what you are doing is wrong "for you".

    Part of the problem with looking at weight and body composition as a measure for health is, there are plenty of fat people who are far healthier eating calorie restricted diets vs skinny people who consume calorie dense diets. Meaning a hypo-thyroid diet is trumping a hyper-thyroid diet for health and longevity. But again, before the attacks start, remember what your body is built to do.. survive, and last, even at the expense of your own well being. As people age, they metabolically slow down, their ticker slows down, their BMR slows down, and this is all in the name of conservation, your body is doing this to increase it's longevity. When you go hypo-thyroid, which I assume many of us have here at some point, it isn't the most pleasant feeling. Cold, lethargic, run down, disinterested, just to name a few symptoms of what people experience. Sure you are increasing your longevity, but is it something you personally can live with? This is where it is up to the individual to decide what is the perfect balance for them. Go hypo-thyroid, hyper-thyroid, or somewhere in the middle, what is the most comfortable for them.

    I went off on a tangent in regards to weight, but here is my point, if people want to look at weight loss/gain as measure of measures for health, then they should go visit another forum, the bodybuilding forums. Many many people there have astronomical success with weight loss (cutting as they call it), and bulking up. The thing is, their principals completely fly in the face of the principals we see here. You read any of the cutting success stories, it's ALWAYS the same thing with the same foods eaten and restricted. It's about calorie balance, consume less than what you expend (CICO), and what you expend is different than what someone else expends. The end result though is cutting calories, and I can tell people for certain that rarely anyone is able to shed weight eating a 3000 calorie diet. Not unless they are in their early 20's and already have a shredded look trying to get into single digit body fat %. Everybody is cutting it seems in the 1400-1800 range on rest days and 2000-2400 on exercise days. They also generally restrict all forms of sugar except minimal fruit when cutting. This is due to insulin response. They also heavily emphasize starchy carbs (oatmeal, rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes as carb sources, and generally restrict carbs on rest days, but are a little more liberal on exercise days. Many also practice some sort of intermittent fasting, whether it be a 12, 14, or 16 hour fast.

    The point is, if people are looking at weight as a measure of how healthy they are, then they're in the wrong forum, they should be over in the bodybuilding forum looking at all the people are doing it there. The methods there are dead opposite as to what they are here. Calorie restriction, starch emphasis, sugar restriction, and exercise. I have literally only read one testimonial with accompanying pics of someone who lost weight eating a 3000 calorie daily diet, but even then it was restricted in sugar.

    I responded specifically to your post because you mentioned Okinawan people have the longest longevity on the planet currently, by this I mean traditional Okinawa people. My girlfriends family is rooted to traditional Okinawa, and I can tell people with fact that their daily diets are that of a hypo-thyroid diet. I'd estimate they consume anywhere from 1000 to maybe 1400 calories daily on average, so I do believe it when you say they eat to 80 % full. If people want to look at an actual ongoing real world study of health and longevity and diets, then look at the Okinawan populace; hypo-thyroid diet. I've also mentioned this before on here in relation to testosterone and steroids, it's well known that people who consume steroids die considerably sooner, and steroids have a sole purpose, increasing Testosterone in turn increasing metabolism.. aka a drastic increase in metabolism as shown by the numerous roid users, die off quicker. Combine that knowledge with the okinawan longevity hypo-thyroid diet and we should have a clear picture here; increases in metabolism and cellular activity are linked to shortened lifespan.

    Now after in saying all that, it brings me to another point tyw brought up, some sugar being good doesnt mean more sugar is better, and that is 100% the truth, and it's the truth for a lot of things. It's basically a trap people fall in, thinking one thing is good so more must be better, and we've all seen it and probably done it:

    Paleo - People assume it's low carb and therefore the lower carb you eat, the better. No this isn't the case, it means eating whole foods for whatever your activity and lifestyle dictate. Many people assume low carb is better, that is not the case. They run themselves down, turn themselves severely hypo-thyroid and go on binges like nobody's business
    Peating - People seem to the more sugar the better. Drink more OJ, drink more milk, drink more coke maybe?. Regardless, more is better because it lowers cortisol and increases metabolism, without any regard to what it might be doing to their liver, then wonder why they are gaining weight..

    What ever happened to moderation and eating for one's lifestyle? "More" is not better, moderation is better.
     
  20. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Agree with @WestCoaster . Not much for me to add in that regard, except:

    (1) to answer @Jarman's point, and I did briefly discuss the Okinawan diet here -- People With The Lowest Overall Mortality Are Overweight

    (2) Absolute caloric amounts needed to maintain good function will of course vary by individual. Experiment and figure things out; not everyone will be average (I am 190cm, and also have slightly higher than average caloric needs).

    ....
     
Loading...