tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9040807413744183436.post3316697084568108839..comments2023-10-23T00:53:05.301-04:00Comments on Heretic: It's sugar not calories!Stan Bleszynskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03922719716458272303noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9040807413744183436.post-20295884651721901892015-11-03T02:59:37.714-05:002015-11-03T02:59:37.714-05:00I agree with all the comments. It's a very goo...I agree with all the comments. It's a very good thing to see that cutting carbs (whatever the overall change in calories/macronutrients was) is effective to loose weight. But it's also true that, as a result, this study is not conclusive about sugar *toxicity*. To be, it should have been conducted in a metabolic ward with strict weight maintenance... then, a change in biomarkers could have been meaningful. And if there was a change in caloric consumption to keep the weight stable, that would have be a thing too!<br /><br />As it was conducted, the study just show that whatever they did (which is not even really clear) while reducing sugar intake is effective to loose weight. On short term.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07081895238101421927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9040807413744183436.post-85578827282184053582015-10-28T18:30:21.245-04:002015-10-28T18:30:21.245-04:00The study is not perfect, I agree with the lack of...The study is not perfect, I agree with the lack of control group being the major drawback but I disagree with the criticism of isocaloric/weight loss effect. If those kids lost weight on an isocaloric diet without even trying, while living at home and thus being able to supplement if they really felt hungry - that alone is quite valuable observation! I don't think that the criticism about the incorrect base calories is warranted. The base caloric requirement was quoted as: 29 ± 6 kcal/kg which seems adequate or even excessive if the kids weren't very active. If they lost some weight on a 29kcal/kg diet then brilliant! Bravo Dr. Lustig! <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Stan Bleszynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03922719716458272303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9040807413744183436.post-7732094214186891072015-10-28T14:11:34.584-04:002015-10-28T14:11:34.584-04:00The study isn't good, but the results aren'...The study isn't good, but the results aren't useless either. Those two above criticize the weight loss, but that itself says something. Human nutrition studies are always flawed; take what you can from each. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05161850700121191487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9040807413744183436.post-58726548049535691362015-10-28T09:51:30.349-04:002015-10-28T09:51:30.349-04:00There's also this critique
http://nutrevolve....There's also this critique<br /><br />http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2015/10/kids-sugar-and-metabolic-mechanisms.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10709553155869979806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9040807413744183436.post-83285882654583330502015-10-28T03:44:07.809-04:002015-10-28T03:44:07.809-04:00Maybe... maybe not...
http://www.stats.org/glarin...Maybe... maybe not...<br /><br />http://www.stats.org/glaring-flaws-in-sugar-toxicity-study/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com