When Ernie and I were in Banff over the Christmas break, we actually had some time to watch TV. I know, I know, crazy right?
One night, we stayed up super late (till like midnight! I know, crazy!) and watched a cool program called, "Horizon: Sugar vs Fat" where identical twin male doctors go on experimental diets of either high fat or high sugar to see the effects either diet would have on their bodies. If you'd like to see it, just give it a Google and watch it, it was interesting.
So the premise of the experiment was that both men had their blood sugars, body fat, weight and muscle mass measured prior to beginning the experiment. They weren't your body-building type people, they were what most people would consider "average". After, they began the experiment. One of them was on a high carb, high sugar, low fat diet and the other on a low sugar, low carb, high fat diet. The one on the high sugar diet could eat sweets, bread, fruits, vegetables, etc and the high fat could eat steaks, cheese, butter, etc. They did this "diet experiment" for one month and did various tests throughout to see the effects that each diet had on them.
For example, one of the tests was putting them both to work in on a computer for the day in the stock market. They both did the same job that demanded attention, quick decision making skills and energy. The one on the high sugar diet, named Chris, did quite well as the sugar gave his brain the energy he needed to make decisions, remember things and be attentive. The other brother, named Xand, did not do as well, he said he felt lethargic and had a hard time remembering things during the challenge. I felt like that was quite interesting, I remember in school people saying that chocolate and candy were "studying foods" which I always figured was an excuse for university students to eat candy, but I guess there is some science behind the amount of sugar in it and keeping your brain sharp... that is until the sugar crash later on.
The other challenge they did was a hour long spin bike session. This was interesting as Chris, the brother on the high sugar diet, did well at first, but burned out quickly and Xand, the high fat diet, did well at the endurance and was not nearly as tired as Chris was. The reason is that the high sugar diet that Chris was on, supplied glucose for his energy at first, but then burnt out faster.
From my course, I've learned that when breaking down glucose molecules, the body does not produce near as much energy as it does breaking down fat molecules. This is would explain that when the body is using glucose for energy, it breaks it down quickly and a by-product of breaking down glucose is lactic acid, which explains cramping and lethargy. So at first, the body breaks down glucose and you have lots of energy, but as time goes on after a couple minutes, the body burns out of its fuel. After the glucose is burnt out, the body needs another source of energy, usually in the form of fat, which can make a lot of energy. This explains why Xand did well at the endurance challenge.
After the experiment was over, the brothers went through the same testing as before. They got their blood sugars tested, body fat, weight and muscle mass measured. They also ran full blood screens before and after and calculated their BMI's and a few other tests.
I found the results interesting. Both brothers, lost weight. Xand, the one on the high fat diet, lost quite a bit more weight than Chris on the high sugar diet. That all sounds nice, but when you look closer at what weight was actually lost, Xand lost mostly muscle mass, which is not a good thing. I thought the weight loss was interesting, because you'd think they'd gain weight. That is what everyone would assume is that one of these diets would make a person gain crazy amounts of weight. I realized that they probably were on a calorie controlled diet where they were in taking the same amount of calories every day to ensure some sort of control in the experiment.
What else was interesting is that when it came to blood sugar levels, Xand's levels were actually higher than Chris. What they concluded was that Chris' body became used to the amount of sugar in his diet and therefore, his body compensated by increasing the amount of insulin. Now, this in the short term looks good, but long term would likely lead to him becoming diabetic because his pancreas will eventually not be able to keep up with the high demand. So, I found that interesting as well. They said on the show that Xand is on his was to becoming pre-diabetic, but I don't quite understand how having a blood glucose of 5.9 is on his way to becoming pre-diabetic. I think they needed to elaborate a bit more on that.
However, the take away point wasn't until the very end. They were trying to see if the obesity problem was due to either fat or sugar. What they concluded was not one single thing was the root of the problem, it was that they BOTH were a problem. It is the combination of sugar and fat together that is the main issue. They concluded with a study on rats that the rats didn't really gain or lose much weight on either a high fat or a high sugar diet. What really made the difference was when they combined the two together (think cheesecake, ice cream, etc) that made the rats gain weight. So, as a result, the combination of sugar and fat together in excess causes the problem; as well as other things like lack of exercise.
Here is the thing, we need both sugar and fat in our diets. Sugar in the form of carbohydrates is energy and fat is required for proper function of the body (making of hormones, satiety, etc). Cutting one of these out of the diet completely is not going to make you lose weight and be healthier versus cutting out the other. You need both sugar and fat! What really matters is where you get your sources of sugar and fat. If you're getting your sugar and fat in the form of simple carbs (sugar, candy, pop, etc) and fat from unhealthy sources (creams, butter, etc) and you are consuming an excess of calories; then you will be unhealthy and gain weight-its that simple! If you are getting your energy in the form of complex carbs (whole wheat, vegetables, etc), and fats from healthier sources (olive oil, fish oils, etc) and are consuming the proper amount of calories; then you will be healthier overall. The other take away from this is not following fad diets and keeping processed junk to a minimum.
Now, I realize this is only one experiment that is done on two people, but I felt like it had a good take away point. There were some flaws to the experiment and things I felt needed to be elaborated on a bit more, but overall I felt it was interesting.
So, it is not the battle between sugar and fat that is the problem, in the end, its a secret alliance of unhealthy sugar and fats that is a problem.
One night, we stayed up super late (till like midnight! I know, crazy!) and watched a cool program called, "Horizon: Sugar vs Fat" where identical twin male doctors go on experimental diets of either high fat or high sugar to see the effects either diet would have on their bodies. If you'd like to see it, just give it a Google and watch it, it was interesting.
So the premise of the experiment was that both men had their blood sugars, body fat, weight and muscle mass measured prior to beginning the experiment. They weren't your body-building type people, they were what most people would consider "average". After, they began the experiment. One of them was on a high carb, high sugar, low fat diet and the other on a low sugar, low carb, high fat diet. The one on the high sugar diet could eat sweets, bread, fruits, vegetables, etc and the high fat could eat steaks, cheese, butter, etc. They did this "diet experiment" for one month and did various tests throughout to see the effects that each diet had on them.
For example, one of the tests was putting them both to work in on a computer for the day in the stock market. They both did the same job that demanded attention, quick decision making skills and energy. The one on the high sugar diet, named Chris, did quite well as the sugar gave his brain the energy he needed to make decisions, remember things and be attentive. The other brother, named Xand, did not do as well, he said he felt lethargic and had a hard time remembering things during the challenge. I felt like that was quite interesting, I remember in school people saying that chocolate and candy were "studying foods" which I always figured was an excuse for university students to eat candy, but I guess there is some science behind the amount of sugar in it and keeping your brain sharp... that is until the sugar crash later on.
The other challenge they did was a hour long spin bike session. This was interesting as Chris, the brother on the high sugar diet, did well at first, but burned out quickly and Xand, the high fat diet, did well at the endurance and was not nearly as tired as Chris was. The reason is that the high sugar diet that Chris was on, supplied glucose for his energy at first, but then burnt out faster.
From my course, I've learned that when breaking down glucose molecules, the body does not produce near as much energy as it does breaking down fat molecules. This is would explain that when the body is using glucose for energy, it breaks it down quickly and a by-product of breaking down glucose is lactic acid, which explains cramping and lethargy. So at first, the body breaks down glucose and you have lots of energy, but as time goes on after a couple minutes, the body burns out of its fuel. After the glucose is burnt out, the body needs another source of energy, usually in the form of fat, which can make a lot of energy. This explains why Xand did well at the endurance challenge.
After the experiment was over, the brothers went through the same testing as before. They got their blood sugars tested, body fat, weight and muscle mass measured. They also ran full blood screens before and after and calculated their BMI's and a few other tests.
I found the results interesting. Both brothers, lost weight. Xand, the one on the high fat diet, lost quite a bit more weight than Chris on the high sugar diet. That all sounds nice, but when you look closer at what weight was actually lost, Xand lost mostly muscle mass, which is not a good thing. I thought the weight loss was interesting, because you'd think they'd gain weight. That is what everyone would assume is that one of these diets would make a person gain crazy amounts of weight. I realized that they probably were on a calorie controlled diet where they were in taking the same amount of calories every day to ensure some sort of control in the experiment.
What else was interesting is that when it came to blood sugar levels, Xand's levels were actually higher than Chris. What they concluded was that Chris' body became used to the amount of sugar in his diet and therefore, his body compensated by increasing the amount of insulin. Now, this in the short term looks good, but long term would likely lead to him becoming diabetic because his pancreas will eventually not be able to keep up with the high demand. So, I found that interesting as well. They said on the show that Xand is on his was to becoming pre-diabetic, but I don't quite understand how having a blood glucose of 5.9 is on his way to becoming pre-diabetic. I think they needed to elaborate a bit more on that.
However, the take away point wasn't until the very end. They were trying to see if the obesity problem was due to either fat or sugar. What they concluded was not one single thing was the root of the problem, it was that they BOTH were a problem. It is the combination of sugar and fat together that is the main issue. They concluded with a study on rats that the rats didn't really gain or lose much weight on either a high fat or a high sugar diet. What really made the difference was when they combined the two together (think cheesecake, ice cream, etc) that made the rats gain weight. So, as a result, the combination of sugar and fat together in excess causes the problem; as well as other things like lack of exercise.
Here is the thing, we need both sugar and fat in our diets. Sugar in the form of carbohydrates is energy and fat is required for proper function of the body (making of hormones, satiety, etc). Cutting one of these out of the diet completely is not going to make you lose weight and be healthier versus cutting out the other. You need both sugar and fat! What really matters is where you get your sources of sugar and fat. If you're getting your sugar and fat in the form of simple carbs (sugar, candy, pop, etc) and fat from unhealthy sources (creams, butter, etc) and you are consuming an excess of calories; then you will be unhealthy and gain weight-its that simple! If you are getting your energy in the form of complex carbs (whole wheat, vegetables, etc), and fats from healthier sources (olive oil, fish oils, etc) and are consuming the proper amount of calories; then you will be healthier overall. The other take away from this is not following fad diets and keeping processed junk to a minimum.
Now, I realize this is only one experiment that is done on two people, but I felt like it had a good take away point. There were some flaws to the experiment and things I felt needed to be elaborated on a bit more, but overall I felt it was interesting.
So, it is not the battle between sugar and fat that is the problem, in the end, its a secret alliance of unhealthy sugar and fats that is a problem.
Comments
Post a Comment