>In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference.
I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared.
However I still think this will be unfavorable to the sugar, since you won't be satiated for long, and the insulin crash will make you eat again soon.
We can't ignore psychology on this, too. In the long run your hormones will beat your rational thinking, so you can of course theoretically lose weight on a high sugar diet, but you won't.
> I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared.
Curiously, we're mixing cooked vs. uncooked. I've always been using dry pasta weight as reference (as the pasta is weighted before), but in context, your observations are more precise :)
In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference.
Paleo is very fashionable, but I wonder how many people will actually follow through in the long term (years), since eating very large amounts of meat is not realistically sustainable, in different ways (I have firsthand experience on this).