Random commenter #2, but I'm a genetics professor at a med school FWIW. Sugar is a major factor. The genetics of obesity point to a strong link to behavior. Sugar is addictive. Alcohol and nicotine are drugs, and so is sugar. There needs to be regulations on sugar content of foods. If you say it's not possible, I point to the low-fat craze years of the 1980s-1990s, where ironically we basically proved that swapping fat with sugar made our obesity problem worse.

With all due respect, professor, claiming that sugar is 'addictive' and that it is in fact a drug, is a bit of a stretch. I'm not nearly at the level of addiction research that you are privy too, so please excuse my ignorance of the most recent research results. However, in my lay understanding of the science of addiction, it seems that sugar is no where close to the same ball-park as nicotine or caffeine. Unless the definition of 'drug' and of 'addiction', has recently changed, of course. Still, if what you say is true, this would be a large overturn in the common, lay-person, understanding of drugs and addiction! It's implications on a dietary (and policy) level, would be fof a great boon to all of us. If you have the time, I would love to know more about this and how you formed your understanding. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

It is a matter of definitions. Here is a review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234835/.

"The FA framework for understanding obesity is the notion that highly processed 'hyperpalatable' foods have hijacked the reward centers in the brain thus impairing the decision-making process, similar to drugs of abuse."

"Finally, there is strong evidence of the existence of sugar addiction, both at preclinical and clinical level. Our model has demonstrated that five out of eleven criteria for SUD are met, specifically: use of larger amounts and for longer than intended, craving, hazardous use, tolerance, and withdrawal. From an evolutionary perspective, we must consider addiction as a normal trait that permitted humans to survive primitive conditions when food was scarce. As we evolved culturally, the neural circuits involved in addictive behaviors became dysfunctional and instead of helping us survive they are in fact compromising our health."

Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for.

I get physical dependence on sugar. My other comment in this thread details it a bit. If I eat sugar regularly I get small sinus headaches that are unpleasant, but bearable. When I cut it out I go into full withdrawal. I recognize that the literature doesn't support this and I would happily undergo studies to back it up. I have gone through this process multiple times and I get sick consistently (I no longer eat sugar because of this).

I might be an anomaly due to an autoimmune disorder, but we may need to start putting an asterisk that sugar is not addictive *for most people.

I'd add "cars" to the answer, but sugar definitely comes first.

I hate cars as much as the next tree hugging urbanist but they are almost certainly not a major culprit here. In the US cars were almost as dominant as they are today in the 1950s-70s (for adults, kid were much more likely to walk to school then). If anything the use of car has stayed close to constant. How we spend our time when not in transit has become far more sedentary though. Instead of going out and doing things for recreation we shitpost on the internet. Instead of manually washing dishes we load the dishwasher and go watch netflix. Our jobs have also become much less physically demanding. Many jobs that would have one engaging in a moderate amount of physical activity have been automated or altered to be far less demanding though this has greatly reduced workplace injuries from repetitive strain (manhandling stuff around all day might not be good for your back but you're not gonna get fat doing it). Even someone employed as a secretary is going to do far less physical work and walking around the office than in 1970 thanks to tech.

Oh yeah, cars will make you lazy in ways I'm still surprised. It changes your notion of time and space. You can go from A to Z in 1h, something that would take a day. And the speed increase is exhilarating. It's a bad drug.

I strongly agree with this. I cut out sugar because I was getting sinus headaches. When I cut it out (multiple times) I would go through full withdrawal (massive sinus headache, cold sweat, shakes, vomiting). There are hundreds of articles that say you cannot develop a physical dependence on sugar, but I disagree from personal experience.

That said, avoiding it is tough. I understand why people would gain weight back when leaving a clinical setting. It's in everything and there is a reason it is in everything; it causes people to eat more of the things it is in. I'm lucky in a sense, I have a strong physical reaction when I eat the wrong thing and that helps me make the right choices (things that don't make me feel like hell). If other people don't have this physical dependence though, they would have no punishment for eating incorrectly. That's a much harder problem to address and I don't have the answers for it.

Yes! In Feb I've got diagnosed with diabetes - My estimated average glucose was 269 (mg/dL), A1C was 11.0!!! (1/31/2018)

Got started (myself) on diet, doctor prescribed me metmorphin and something stronger (had to stop it). Nearly 4 months ago, I'm without any medications again.

Not the best results - but on 5/15/2018 I was down to 126 mg/dL (6.0), and on 8/21/2018 + 12/4/2018 - same result of 114 (5.6) - ideally I should be lower - but this is without medications!

What did I changed - Went full carnivore... hah not really - but I am subscribed to various groups (still evaluating for myself)

I simply cut down not only sugar, but carbs too - though I decided to eat certain fruits in small quantities - like blackberries, strawberries, tangerines (they are small, so I can control it), occasionally watermelon (who knew!). No bananas, apples, etc + I can't give up tomatoes (technically fruits), cucumber, lettuce + nuts, cheese, etc.

When I got stomach flu (some mild food poisoning), went to "BRAT" diet for a day though - but just the RICE, apart from that avoiding rice, wheat, potatoes (very little, no fries at all).

Beer? Beer a month, and I used to jug 10 guinesses a night (heavy \m/etal style).

So it's a bit boorish, but had to do it.

Lost 40-50 lbs (320 -> 270, I'm 6'4"). Waist from 42-43 -> 38, still have belly fat though. Do exercises by walking the dog a lot + Iron Mind (can squeeze 3 with right hand, 2.5 with left). Started doing pull ups, and was very excited I can do 7 - but forgot one day to properly warm up - and had to stop for 2-3 months, as I tore something, would continue after new year.

Tried running, but not for me.

Other than that - no longer feeling sleepy through the day, had energy, but it's a bit different - I used to be able to grab two dudes on my side and lift them - I can't do this anymore (stupid thing really). Lol - another anecdotal thing - during mosh-pits used to be more stable - hahaha (too old for this shit anyway) - now can get put down easier (weight must count for something really).

So you go.

SUGAR... is the drug DEA should really look into :)

I cut out added sugars and dropped 80 lbs over 3 years.

YMMV.

Completely agree with this. I've struggled with my weight all my life. I was always hungry and dieting (simple calorie restriction) felt like torture and would never last. For my latest attempt, I cut out added sugar completely and switched to intermittent fasting. The first week was the hell I was used to, but after the sugar addiction waned so did my incessant appetite. I used to think about food all the time and always with an eye towards what my next meal would be. Now I feel like I can actually trust my hunger signals and as a result eating far fewer calories is easy and natural versus the constant struggle simple calorie restriction dieting was.

To be more precise the answer, in a word: "Hormones".

Obesity is a endocrine disorder.

Sugar -- it so happens -- majorly screws up the endocrine system. Other things do too... but sugar is the biggie.

It's more Grains than any type of sugar

Funnily enough, sugar is typically found alongside most grain based foods. It's in breads, cupcakes, etc etc. Ruling out grains consequently get's rid of a large source of sugar. The two are pretty intertwined.

Try removing all grains but keep eating as many raisans and dates as possible. You will loss weight. The type of sugar matters more than just all sugar.

It all ends up as glucose. If you eat glucose, it goes straight into your blood stream as glucose. If you eat fructose, it gets converted into glucose. If you eat starches, the polymers are chopped into simple sugars of glucose and fructose, and the fructose is converted to glucose. Whether you eat glucose directly, or eat other sugars and starches, it all ends up as glucose. The only difference is the workload that you create for your liver.

How it gets converted is the key not what it ends up as. One type will be easier to breakdown another more difficult. That's the key.

Sorry, that makes little sense to me. The extra calories burnt in conversion to glucose is not going to be enough to cause weight loss. Any glucose that your body does not immediately consume gets converted to lipids and stored.

Show me the chemistry. Show me how sugar in a raisin is somehow significantly fewer net calories of glucose than just eating the equivalent in refined cane sugar or wheat flour. Sure, it takes a small amount of energy to reduce other sugars to glucose, but I can't see how it can be enough to make a difference in a weight loss diet.

One aspect is speed.

Eat white sugar you will quickly get an energy boost but whatever cannot be used will be stored.

Eat a complex carb and it requires more steps to breakdown. That allows for a slower release of energy and less of a need to store.

The digestive system is a pipeline of processes.

Source? I treat all sugar the same, "to be consumed conservatively." My understanding is that the body processes pretty much all the same. Happy to read more from your sources

Depending on the type of sugar different processes are involved.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructos...

Processed foods and high fructose corn syrup. This is the culprit here.

Both are carbohydrates. One might argue that grains make less fat than refined sugar. But it might also be more about the amount than about the source of things.

Humans have been eating grains for 10,000 years, and sugar for a hundred.

Humans were working their asses from 4-5 in the morning, up to late nights, walking miles and miles, carrying heavy stuff (women with their infants strapped on their back, or in a pouch working in the field/farm).

I know, because i knew such strong person that was frickin healthy even in her 90 years - one of my grand grand grand mom. Rosy cheecks, wrinkled face of a worker. Still later in her years, was no problem for her waking up and working a lot.

humans were extracting sugar from sugarcane 8,000 years ago. It was consumed heavily in india 2000 years ago. BUt of course we've been eating free sugars in foods for as long as we've been around.

Sugar was a rare luxury until recently. Even fruit was a luxury historically. Yes people ate sugar more than a hundred years ago, but it was a few pounds per year. Modern intake is more than fifty times as much.

Grains were crucial when food was scarce and preparation tedious, not so much when abundant and effortless. Both may be an issue in the modern world.

Humans have been eating sugars in fruit form since day 1.