Last year, I started taking LCHF lifestyle [0] seriously. The primary influence was Prof Tim Noakes [1] and his relentless tweets about how sugar is at the root of widespread obesity, and the diseases associated with obesity. I stopped having sugar and carbohydrate rich food, and my weight dropped rapidly. I went from being heaviest in my life to 10kg lighter in a span of 6 months. And I felt great.

Now I know the secret sauce of weight loss, and feeling great at the same time, but the only thing that knocks me off this diet and lifestyle is stress. When under work related stress, I end up eating carbohydrate rich food which results in quick weight gain. I am in the process of figuring out a way to stay on LCHF because I long to going back to the feeling that I have experienced while on LCHF.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet

[1]: https://twitter.com/ProfTimNoakes

I always get thrown off that plan by things like yogurt. Even plain yogurt lists a ton of sugar. I can't wait for the new labels that show added sugar.

The natural sugar that is in milk is lactose and that is not really a problem (as long as you are not lactose intolerant of course).

The problematic sugar is refined fructose. That is the stuff cannot be properly processed by the body and causes all kinds of chaos for your metabolism.

Even naturally occurring fructose, such as in fruit, is ok. But once you concentrate it into crystallized sugar or HFCS, it becomes a slow acting poison.

In the US, plain yogurt would show any added sugar in the ingredients list (it would not reflect the amount).

But it starts from milk, so there is lots of sugar it in.

There has been new legislation passed that starting..next year?..labels will have to show total sugar and added sugar, so you can realistically get a sense of how much is original vs. additive.

Yeah I get that, it's just that you can already tell if something like plain yogurt has added sugar or not. In my experience, most brands list milk and the bacteria cultures.

I guess varying the preparation of the yogurt can still result in a wide range of sugar content.

That's a great point. I just checked and it doesn't list it. I don't know why I never thought of that.

I've cut out 90% of my sugar intake (no more soda), but I still hover around the same weight. :/

>I've cut out 90% of my sugar intake (no more soda)

Soda if just one of things with sugar (and diet soda has none anyway).

Most food, from McDonalds burgers to Chinese has loads of sugar.

And of course, losing weight is mostly a matter of reducing caloric intake. If you compensated for the sugar in sodas with extra food, you'll stay the same weight.

Have you tried cutting out more carbs? Dropping bread, pasta, rice, and white potatoes helped me a lot.

You probably just reduced your calorie intake. There is scant evidence that those sources of carbs matters at all in the sense that they are somehow worse than other sources of calories. But fair play to you for doing something. It's genuinely admirable.

One type of macro food group affects insulin resistance. Carbs. All calories are not created equal, just ask any diabetic (and there are many many of them to ask).

We're talking about cutting out a food category and presumably replacing it with another. I don't know of any convincing evidence this results in weight loss. Open to information of course!

  > We're talking about cutting out a food category
  > and presumably replacing it with another.

Pretty much, yes, depending on how you categorise foods.

  > I don't know of any convincing evidence this
  > results in weight loss. Open to information of
  > course!

Plenty of evidence exists - where have you already looked?

Atkins - probably the most famous. Tim Ferris - relatively recent. Both good starting points for some large (though in some cases you'll find some insufficiently formal) studies.

The 2014 US film 'Fed Up' goes into some good detail about why this particular food category is bad for you - including a lovely animated graphic about a half hour in.

The actual article (did you read it?) this story points to has a box on p24 that describes this too - the 'a calorie is not a calorie'. That box includes several links to some more scientific research on the subject.

The underlying problem is that the sentiment you've expressed - replacing one food category with another can't possibly be effective at reducing weight / risk of disease, improving well-being, etc - is one that the sugar industry is very happy with, and regrettably is very widely held.

To many people it's intuitive that all energy is equal in terms of what your body does with it. Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is the case, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.

Do some searches on things like 'evidence of weight loss with low-carbohydrate diets' maybe append 'high fat' for some interesting variants.

You'll find some good studies, plus an abundance of anecdotes (blogs basically :) of people who've maintained or increased their raw energy input, while reducing their weight, through dietary changes alone.

Surely you can link me the best studies?

>There is scant evidence that those sources of carbs matters at all in the sense that they are somehow worse than other sources of calories.

what about glycemic index? Surely foods with high GI are demonstrably worse?

As far as I'm aware there are no studies that clearly show that replacing potatoes bread etc with equivalent calories in other forms results in weight loss.

Try building some muscle. Maintaining muscles requires tons of energy, and I believe it is the best way to lose weight (read: fat).

Yes dropping sugar is the first step. But then after a while, you want to take it further, and you start exercising. And suddenly, you need sugars again!

Anecdotally, I completely disagree. I've been eating a ketogenic diet (less than ~20 net grams per day) almost exclusively since May 2013 and have been lifting for the last 8 months and haven't needed for any carbs. While it's possible after a certain level some well-timed carbs can help you lift heavier than without, those won't be the kinds of sugars most people are eating. But, since I'm not looking to become a body builder I'll probably never need to worry about that.

Well, you have to admit that a ketogenic diet is something else entirely. That is impressive, I personally don't know any people who could stick to it for such a long time.

You don't need actual sugar. Some carbs that the body turns to sugar perhaps.

Yeah, sugar from fruit. Not refined sugar.

Why do you need sugars?

how much sugar were you eating perviously?

Good question. I did not track the intake but it was dessert after lunch, something sweet to soften the 4pm energy low, something sweet to go with morning coffee, sweetened muesli or jam for breakfast. Small things that probably added to unhealthy amounts.

I think this should be the most obvious dietary advice for the overweight. Cut out entire classes of sugar intake such as soda and candy, except perhaps once per month or week.

Sadly, people can't take simple advice.

What a disgusting attitude you have.

If it were as easy as you say, everyone would just do it. 36% of US adults are considered obese.

It's obviously a lot more complicated and harder than taking "simple" advice.

I think sugar is additive, like tobacco, and with lots of bad health outcomes and because it is additive that is why it is hard to cut it out. Watch the movie Sugar Coated for one take on this line of reasoning.

It likely is as easy as cutting sugar out, just like smokers should cut cigarettes out, it is just hard to do because of the additives qualities of the drugs.

And like cigarettes, cutting down isn't really as effective as cutting it out nearly entirely, because a little bit of an additive drugs primes you for more.

That 36% of US adults are considered obese does not make it obvious that losing weight is any more complicated than cutting sugar & carbs.

First, "common sense" dietary advise is that fats are bad. That's why you see foods marketed as low-fat. Because common sense dietary advice has been focused on the wrong thing (fat instead of sugar/carbs), most people's conception of "eating healthy" is wrong.

Second, the route to being financially healthy and stable is incredibly simple: spend significantly less that you make. Yet some how a huge percentage of people in the US spend beyond their means. Could it not also be the case with cutting sugar & carbs that even if people actually knew what they needed to do, they still would not do it?