Sugar vs fat on BBC: which is worse?
Sugar or fat, which is worse? That’s the question in the BBC documentary “Sugar vs. Fat” that aired the other night. And it’s been a long time since I got so many e-mails asking me for comments!
It’s an interesting setup. Two identical twin brothers – both of them doctors – go on a diet for a month. One on an extreme low fat diet, one on an extreme low carb diet (not even vegetables are allowed!). Here’s some background information:
MailOnline: One twin gave up sugar, the other gave up fat. Their experiment could change YOUR life
You can watch the show online here.
Unfortunately they end up mostly “confirming” their preconceived ideas. Ready? Here comes the spoilers:
Result
Obviously when there is only one person on each diet, chance plays a big role. But I think the findings were more or less what could be expected, it’s mostly the ignorant (or TV-drama) explanations I have objections to.
Weight
First thing first. Even though both brothers were at a fairly decent weight to start with, the low-carb brother lost the most weight: 4 kg (9 pounds) vs only 1 kg (2 pounds) for the low-fat brother.
As study after study show more effective weight loss on a low-carb diet, this should be no surprise. The loss of fat was 1,5 kg on low-carb (a good result in a month) and 0,5 kg on low-fat. Most of the rest was probably fluid. On a very strict low-carb diet you quickly lose a kilo or two of glycogen and water weight.
How much – if any – muscle mass the participants lost is impossible to know as the BodPod test only measures fat mass vs. non-fat mass (including water).
Brain function
For testing the brain function of the brothers the producers chose to make them do stock trading with fake money.
This shows that the producer is ignorant or just interested in a dramatic show. Why? Because short-term stock trading – without insider info or other illegal tricks – is a game of pure chance. It’s been convincingly shown that a trained monkey has a 50% chance of beating a well-educated stock broker. Why? Because it’s all chance.
In other words this test is rubbish, but the low-fat brother wins.
More interesting and relevant is that the low-carb brother complains of feeling “thick-headed”. I’m sure he’s honest. Going on an extreme low-carb diet – without even vegetables – can absolutely result in problems concentrating etc. for a week or even more, before the body and brain adapts to burning fat and ketones.
This problem can often be partially avoided by increasing the intake of fluid and salt. And after a week or two it’s normally gone.
Exercise
For testing their exercise capacity the brothers do “long sessions of uphill cycling”. The low-carb brother predictably loses badly.
Why? Two things: the body needs weeks or sometimes even months to adapt to high-intensity exercise, using mostly fat and ketones. And even then you might need a little bit of carbs for explosive and anaerobic sports like this.
I’ve interviewed Dr Peter Attia who successfully races his bicycle for hours on a very low-carb diet. Even he uses a little bit of slow-release starch for maximum performance on his long training sessions:
YouTube: Very Low Carb Performance
Diabetes
Finally the icing on the (diabetes) cake. The doctor claims that the low-carb brother has become “almost” pre-diabetic by eating low-carb! The word “almost” should actually be interpreted as “not”. I wonder if the doctor knows the first thing about low-carb and diabetes. In fact I wonder how much he knows about diabetes at all.
The low-carb brother has a fasting glucose of 5,1 before the diet (normal) and a fasting glucose of 5,9 after the diet (normal). Did you catch the word “normal” twice? Yes, thats right, a fasting glucose of up to 6,0 mmol/L is considered normal, at least in Sweden. It also varies significantly from day to day. If we tested the doctors’s own fasting blood glucose it might be 5,9 today and 5,1 tomorrow.
The result could be due to chance but sometimes the fasting glucose level actually gets slightly higher on an LCHF diet, while the glucose levels during the day (after meals) is way lower. This is probably because the body is adapted to burning fat and so the need for burning glucose when fasting is lower. Thus you don’t get the same fasting “dip” in sugar levels.
They also did glucose tolerance tests – a much more relevant test. But the result of the low-carb brother is never mentioned. I guess it was normal.
The fact that diabetes is effectively treated with a low-carb diet should tell us everything we need to know. You don’t get type 2 diabetes by eating a diet that can cure diabetes. And you certainly don’t get type 2 diabetes (strongly correlated to obesity) by losing 4 kilos of excess weight in a month.
Summary
The documentary concludes that it’s not about fat or sugar, it’s about avoiding processed food with both fat and sugar in it. I’m sure that strategy would work fine for these two fairly fit brothers. It’s an excellent start. But it’s not enough for everybody.
In people with obesity and diabetes studies convincingly show that low-carb diets are more effective.
Finally, while a super-strict low-carb diet is not necessary for everyone and has possible side-effects (especially during the first week or two) it certainly do not result in diabetes. That’s just ignorant.
What did you think about the documentary?
More
Diabetes – How to Normalize Your Blood Sugar
New Study: A Low-Carb Diet and Intermittent Fasting Beneficial for Diabetics!
Football Champions on a Low-Carb Diet
Swedish Expert Committee: A Low-Carb Diet Most Effective for Weight Loss
143 comments
First, these two, if they even did these diets that they said they did, only did them for a month. They must have worked hard at it too because one lost "2 pounds." Just because of water weight, your weight can change 4 - 5 pounds any day and it means nothing.
Next, I am on a low-carb diet, and with the possible exception of the first two weeks, I've never had a lack of energy. Just the opposite actually. And my blood sugar certainly hasn't gone up, its gone way down, just like my triglycerides. In fact the only thing going up was my HDL cholesterol.
Why do news organizations carry such fake stories like this? Its sad, actually.
Because the world now "runs" on lies, deceit, misinformation and scams- - This "study" is no different. For full info see EDWARD BERNAYS
70g of fructose, galactose or galactan is 0g of glucose
70g of sucrose or lactose is 36.8g of glucose.
70g of glucose is 70g of glucose.
70g of maltose is 73.5g of glucose.
70g of maltodextrins is somewhere between 73.5g and 77.8g of glucose.
70g of amylose or amylopectin is 77.8g of glucose.
Thus 70g of "carbs" dosn't really have much meaning. (Nor does 70g of "sugars" for that matter.)
Since it's an extraordinary claim where's the extraordinary evidence?
Regards..
I wrote a rather lengthy email to a colleague who asked me if I'd watche it, and it ran in the same lines as the doc's comments above.
Personally I find Sam Feltham's self monitored and conducted experiments all the more accurate and well executed.
BBC, keep trying.
But if you have done any new sciens about it, we gonna meet in Stockholm when you get your Nobel prise in medecine!
Then we can take a coffe and talk about your new sciens!
If you were designed to eat meat you would lick your lips when you saw a little dog walking by, or when you see road-kill. Also, your teeth and jaw shape would be different and you would likely have claws rather than fingernails! You certainly wouldn't need to cook the meat either, as nature would have given you a gut that could handle the digestion of raw meat!
Also, name me another animal that consumes the milk of another animal? Surely humans have not been designed in such a way that unless we artificially impregnate a cow, steal its calf, and then hook the cow up to a milking machine all day, we will miss out on vital nutrients!!??
Stop believing the rubbish that is out there, and start thinking. Simple really, no Nobel Prize required, thanks í ½
But is you aware of the name Mammal?
It means milk drinkers!
We are born milk drinkers.. other Mammals too.
Do you think snakes or sharks have claws.. read your biology book again!
You do have an odd perspective to biology.
And I can tell that Homo Sapiens is the only creature that adapted to coocked food.. we are in moste circumstances relayant to that.
We are omnivores,, if you like it or not,, we can live on a lot of food substances.. and be healty!
But to day.. its a problem of to much glycemic load thats moste problem.. one have to use them.. there are a shortige of storage facilitys in our body.
We vill see each other when you get the Nobel prise in Stockholm.. then I would listen to you!
Are you sure we are omnivores? Name me another natural omnivore? Then check the teeth and jaw of your chosen animal. How similar is it to human teeth and jaw?
Finally, how can a digestive system develop naturally where the food needs artificial preparation? Are you saying that cells have a naturally programmed knowledge of the effects of cooking otherwise inedible food?
So what is more realistic, the premise that humans were designed to eat only foods which we can naturally digest in its raw state (fruit and vegetable), or that humans were designed to cook to get their natural diet? Sometimes you need to follow logic and look around you.
Dogs and cats (carnivores) are known to sometime chew grass and flowers and berries.
There are horses (herbavores) that eats baby birds or fish. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWso-2YA-E)
And no the aimals are not forced to eat it
Point me to one herbavore that has the short digestion of a human. likewise we don't have the very short digeston tracks of carnivores.
We can be poisoned if we eat the wrong kind of herb/vegetable/fruit. In ome cases (like with rots and potatoes) we would get awully sick if we didn't cock them before.
On the other hand we can eat raw animal food.
Our teeth and jaws don't look like that of a bird or a pig, nor does it look like a cow or a horse, or a cat or a dog. in fact it barely looks like that of a shimpanse.
The human developed the ability to cook her food way before we developed agricultur. Therefore we are able to eat a huge variety of foodstuffs, from herbs and rots to animal products of different kind.
We are supposed to eat nutrient and calorie dense food. Not half our weiht in greens each day. Or maybe you have the trunk size of a monkey? Or four stomaches like a cow? Or the need to throw it up and chew your food again?
for example the first man would have been very active walking long distances,foresting hunting capturing food and basic surviving would have needed nutrients from both animals and plants berrys nuts etc.back to design of our teeth we have molars for chewing and canines for biting tearing of flesh ?,wot part of eating fruit and veg would we need canines for?
Also our teeth are not made for tough meat, not many can say they have but have you ever tried to eat raw chicken ham or beef? I have not but I can imagine how impossible it would be with our "crunching teeth" not made for cutting or shredding. Reason we only prefer to eat "tender" meat like filet steak etc. Humans should eat fruit veggie & sea food. These foods have natural sugar, low fat & high protein. Unlike red meat wich is full of fat. Or chicken full of disease us humans can not eat without cooking.
http://www.fitintegrity.com/uploads/9/5/1/6/9516119/no_sugar_no_starc...
Good Luck ! and Enjoy!
Don't Worry be Happy!
- Very likely the "high fat" diet was also far too high in protein. Certainly not a "well-formulated" high fat diet.
- Test subjects were not overweight, indicating that genetically they fall towards the "carbohydrate tolerant" range of the population and therefore have less to benefit than most from switching to high fat
- Adaptation time for high fat very short
- Mental test was a crapshoot
- Physical test was far too anaerobic, playing to all the strengths of high carb
- Ignorance about diabetes (higher fasting glucose, if anything, is strongly implicating protein toxicity)
A month is too short a time for chronic change.
And I agree with others above who say the test should have been a crossover with a washout period. I'd add that each diet should have been maintained for 12 months.
But this would have highlighted the stupidity of the test as neither brother would have tolerated either diet for that long due to the extremity of each.
It would have been more meaningful to make the macro ratios similar to the dietary habits of real people, rather than ridiculous extremes that essentially no one would follow.
The pro Paleo conclusions reached by dietdoctor and those in the comments above, totally ignore the most powerful dietary studies done to date (Adventist Health Studies 1 and 2), which show unequivocally plant based eating trumps every other form of diet re the major causes of death in Western society. The low carb Paleo crowd have several generations of prospective study to go before their faith carries any punch.
All I will say is you need to do some more reading. I know how I lost weight, and how I reversed type 2 diabetes, and it wasn't by steering clear of fats and protein. Your Adventist Health can go begging as far as I am concerned. I know on which side my wheat and sugar-free bread is heavily buttered.
And here's the kicker - EXERCISE!
The problem with advocating 'fad diets' and cutting out major food groups like carbs, is that you're pigeon holing every single person on the planet into the same diet plan. There is no perfect diet plan that applies to everyone.
In my travels around the world I have seen how different cultures eat and live. Generally those in Europe have a small breakfast (if any), moderate lunch, and moderate dinner. In Britain, Australia, USA - the tendency is to eat large meals at least 3 times a day.
Overeating is making people fat and leading to an early death. Not fat and sugar exclusively, but a combination of both in excess.
#science #dontfollowfads #getinformed
I think this link could work:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1amh2t_bbc-horizon-sugar-v-fat-h264...
For the rest, the conclusion, as I see it, is that we should stop thinking of [crazy] diets and turn to eating habits. And essentialy not eating more than our bodies need and doing some exercise. And that's it.
Nowadays we have easy access to food and we also can get a huge variety of it. If we educate ourselves and learn to appreciate and enjoy every type of food we have it easier to adapt our habits and quantities.
Cooking your own meals it's also very good for not getting overweight and eating yummy and healthy.
Fat, with some protein...not a lot of fruit and vegetables in the frozen tundra. They all survived really well until stores started to show up.
The documentary was very single sided with not a lot of forward thinking or time involved doing the tests.
The scariest movie I have recently watched was "That Sugar Movie" talk about ill effects of sugar...wow!
9 calories per gram of fat
4 calories per gram of carbs
4 calories per gram of protein
no matter where they come from your body can not tell. As long as you are eating the correct amount of calories you can lose weight or gain weight eating literally anything you want. Where healthy foods come in is your body composition or how you look. Eating lower amounts of calories will make the numbers on the scale go down yes, but you will not appear or feel fit or healthy unless you eat the proper foods. Your diet should consist of these ratios:
30-50% carbs
25-35% HEALTHY fats
25-35% (approx 0.8-1 gram per pound of body weight) protein
Carbs are pinned as a criminal as they are known the make you fat and burn off before your fat burns making them seem like just another roadblock in between you and your never ending road to weight loss. It is true they do add fat but they are essential for your diet as they are your main source of energy. Body builders cut carbs during their final days before a competition and feel terrible, weak, lazy, and tired as they have no energy provided from the carbs. a low/no carb diet is harmful for you and should not be taken up without consulting a doctor or nutritionist. Finally i would like to talk about "low fat" and "all natural" foods. All natural foods are in a category with next to no regulations when you eat something that says it is all natural but is packaged and sitting in a grocery store isle you are loading yourself with more chemicals and garbage than if you ate regular regulated non natural foods. Low fat foods are another misconception as many people dive in to low fat foods as they read the nutrition labels and see there is low or no fat, what they dont see is the sugar levels significantly rising. Sugar is stored in the body as fat, more slowly then fat itself but stored all the same. I can not exactly tell you the ratio of sugar to fat but it seems as though 2 grams of sugar equate to 1 gram of fat. most low fat or fat free selections have more than 2 times the sugar levels causing it to be more harm then good. Most adds and diets are scams and false stick to a healthy diet and daily exercise and you will fel and look better with lot of care and dedication you can stop and even reverse the effects of diabetes (although never curing it).
This has been proven to maximize longevity and avoid disease time and time again. Yet, everyone wants a magic formula, or pill. Everyone wants to be told that it's okay to eat hamburgers, and ice cream, downed with a lager as long as you do it in moderation. It's not okay. That stuff is toxic for you. We are not evolved to eat it.
There's a trade-off between maximizing your health, and maximizing your pleasure. Maybe it's not worth living to a hundred years old if you are stuck eating nothing but kale and almond milk.
But sadly you can't have your cake and eat it too. You have to make a choice but stop looking for the magic elixir.