Go eat 5000 calories a day of veggies without becoming obese then. Just because calories isn't the only important factor in obesity does not mean its not a factor at all. Scientists are simply building a more sophisticated understanding of obesity that looks at many other factors.
I think the post you’re responding to is referring to well established results such as that there is no metabolic pathway to convert dietary protein to adipose tissue. While some dietary protein is glycolysized, that pathway only satisfies immediate energy needs. Excess dietary protein that isn’t used on lean tissue is eliminated by the kidneys.
Well in practice it would be very tough to over eat on protein alone. Assuming a 2000 calorie diet you'd need to eat over 500g of protein which is roughly 4lbs of chicken breast or 5lbs of tuna.
But at that point it would also be quite harmful to the kidneys
Be wary anytime someone mentions "scientists" in their argument. More than likely OP has no source. Nevertheless, I get his point. Basically, calorie-in/out is still very much used but it doesn't tell the full story. At the end of the day you will gain weight if you eat too many Calories, but eating an apple will make you feel fuller than a chocolate bar, etc. Scientists dont even have a stake in this really it's more like nutritionists, and the jury is out as to whether we can call them scientists.
It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised.
The average person gains an extra 1 to 2 pounds a year. It takes 6,000 calories to gains 2 pounds. This is about ~16.5 calories a day. About a fifth of a slice of bread.
This is an imbalance of energy, on a 2000 calorie diet, of less than 1%.
> It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised.
The whole point of something like calorie counting is so that this is no longer some automated, subconscious process.
OK... that is news to me... do you have a link to a paper that proves this demonstrably false? Disproving a law of thermodynamics sounds like a big deal.
How does the new model explain people losing weight in adverse conditions?
I'm watching someone steadily lose weight via calories-in-calories-out model in front of me right now.
Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. For example, your body's shifting metabolism. Eating certain things causes this to shift. Some people eat healthy constantly and remain overweight; others can't put on pounds no matter what they take in. That's a difference in their natural metabolisms. This is also why exercise matters beyond just the calories you burn over the course of a workout.
> Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that.
The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions.
Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target.
It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight.
Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.
Calories in - calories out. However, what goes out (urine, stool) depends on the type of nutrition and in what combination it is eaten. carbohydrates are the easiest to absorb, followed by fats and last protein.
Sure, though I think that’s already covered in the ‚calories in‘ part, it just shows that it‘s a non-linear system (which is generally hard to reason about outside of science & engineering contexts).
It starts with "Since the early 1900s, medical research has shown that people do lose weight on calorie-restricted diets — in the short term. But in most cases, they quickly gain it back..." and goes onto the studies on things that actually do work long-term, like fixing your sleep, fixing your stress, and limiting carbohydrates in your diet.
So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The point of any of these things, CICO or otherwise, is that you do them for your lifetime as a lifestyle change.
We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. I just sourced this above. Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death" is not a reasonable "lifestyle change" to suggest. That's why "just count calories" is not the advice any respectable scientist would give an obese person, which I believe was @amasad's point.
But to sustain a weight loss you basically do have to eat less, forever. I say this being 60 pounds below my highest weight (200 vs 260).
Someone is talking about protein conversion, but I expect it is just harder to eat excess calories of meat. The 2 pounds of beef a day it would take many people to maintain body weight is a lot of beef to sit and eat.
> We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on.
We do? Last I checked we had a century of people being told that fat is bad and they should eat the fat-free high-sugar yogurt. CICO is still a hotly debated concept in many circles. Such as this thread.
Calorie restriction doesn't tell you what you should or should not be eating. That is the beauty of it. It doesn't tell you what you do. It doesn't resign you to eating spinach for the rest of your life. It doesn't say you can never have ice cream.
> Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death"...
Is a strawman nobody suggested. Any diet that it seems you would prefer, that is more detailed/restrictive in its advice is nonetheless still a calorie restriction diet because nothing else would actually work.
Calorie restriction and counting is a request for introspection. If it gets you to simply realize that big macs are really calorie dense, and that you'd break your daily limit with 3 of them, it has done its job. It's up to you to figure out if you have enough willpower to still include big macs in your diet. Mostly overweight people just have no idea how much they're actually eating.
I have mixed feelings about this line of argument. Both sides are technically correct.
- If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight no matter what the source of those calories are.
- psychological, what you eat will make it easier to maintain a calorie balance and that varies based on the individual.
For me, I ate like crap from the time I was 25-35 but maintained a healthy weight and a decent physique as a part time fitness instructor who worked out 12 times a week.
I like working out so it doesn’t take discipline to work out and my wife will work out with me occasionally but she prefers going to the gym and taking classes.
I stopped working out consistently for five years and my weight ballooned.
I then tried to eat better but I couldn’t get the level of discipline necessary to lose weight.
Then we moved into a house, I converted a room into a home gym and started exercising for 2 hours a day 3-4 times a week that burned about 1500 calories per workout. I got back down to my fitness instructor weight and size in 7 months. I also had to make it point not to eat more to compensate, and only “cheat” on the weekend.
All that being said, when I was teaching and even now I tell people that they can’t exercise thier way to weight loss. Most people don’t have the stamina, the discipline, or the time to work out enough to burn 4000-5000 calories a week and maintain a calorie balance.
It isn't that no one believes in that model of obestity any more. If you locked people in a cage and gave them 1,000 calories of snickers bars a day, yeah they would get lean.
But what complicates the situation is that what you eat affects how much you crave food, and what foods you crave, and how much energy you have, and how you sleep, etc.
Sugar seems to be bad on all of these ancillary fronts.
Well, yeah, exactly. Saying that "consuming fewer calories than you expend leads to weight loss" is obviously true, but it's a little like saying "you win a game of football by scoring more points than your opponent." While it isn't wrong it doesn't tell you that much about how to go about it.
Not the OP, but for all the people commenting below, I think what the OP means to say is that the body is a very complex system and calories from different sources absolutely do have different affects, on your ability to control fat storage and fat burning and to modulate your appetite. The laws of thermodynamics still hold - if you overeat it doesn't matter what you're eating, you will gain weight. But calories in calories out is so simplistic by comparison to reality, that it's a harmful way to look at things.
It is the Newtonian physics of nutrition. It is demonstrably wrong, yet following the rule will lead to success for just about every real life use case.
I mean, this calories in calories out study is in the same NYT issue: "Exercise May Aid in Weight Loss. Provided You Do Enough." https://nyti.ms/2KMz7f9
Calories-in-Calories-out is a straight-up fact. The thing 'scientists' don't like about it is that even if you lose the same amount of weight, where you got your calories from will impact your health differently depending on whether it's a chocolate bar or an apple. Nevertheless, Calories-in-Calories-out is a true model.
Very true. But don't make it the only factor in losing weight. You need to manage amount of food, what you eat and when you eat. They all are important.
Important in this context to me would mean: if I don't eat spinach, or if I skip breakfast, I will NOT lose weight on a calorie deficit. Is that what you mean by important what you eat and when you eat, or something else?
Let's assume you eat the same amounts. It makes a difference if you eat in the morning or in the evening. If you eat very late most likely you won't digest as well and you will gain weight.
You will always lose weight on a deficit but depending on when you eat the amount for a deficit will be different.
Same for the type of food. From my own observation I will gain weight if I eat only a few pretzels daily even if everything else is the same. I assume they cause my digestive system to lose efficiency.
Let's assume you eat the same amounts. It makes a difference if you eat in the morning or in the evening. If you eat very late most likely you won't digest as well and you will gain weight.
That’s considered a myth that’s been debunked ages ago.
The good thing is that with eating you can do a lot of self experimentation and see if things work. I have done this experiment myself and I know a lot of people who also have noticed that the time and frequency of eating makes a huge difference. In this case I trust personal experience more than some study. The health profession doesn't have a very good track record of helping people with weight control.
It’s not the time that you eat from what I’ve read. It ends up being a form of calorie restriction by reducing the number of hours that you eat.
If I come home, work out and then it’s late and I’m hungry,I’ll often just go to bed and not eat. It’s much easier dealing with hunger when you’re sleep than skipping breakfast and then trying to concentrate at work. It’s also, by definition, easier to resist temptation when you’re sleep....
> where you got your calories from will impact your health differently depending on whether it's a chocolate bar or an apple
Is there evidence that this is sufficiently impactful that it should be brought up? I.e., if a person is steadily losing weight, but eating not super healthy, should we tell them to stop?
Overweight people often already don't eat very nutritiously so I'm not sure if it's a large impact. Basically afraid of "perfect is the enemy of good" here. Obesity is a very dominating factor as far as unhealth goes, and many "unhealthy" foods are often marked so because they link back to obesity.
It's impactful enough to be brought up because it's far more important to develop healthy eating habits than it is to lose weight in the long run. If you asked me whether it's more unhealthy to be obese than to be normal weight but eating food with no nutrients, that is something I cannot answer with evidence, but I'm inclined to say eating 5 chocolate bars a day will kill you faster.
Your turn. Please do try to disprove the law of conservation of energy.
Swinburn B, Sacks G, Ravussin E. Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity . Am J Clin Nutr. (2009)
Lack of evidence for high fructose corn syrup as the cause of the obesity epidemic
Leibel RL, et al. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition . Am J Clin Nutr. (1992)
Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets . Am J Clin Nutr. (1996)
Golay A, et al. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (1996)
Luscombe-Marsh ND, et al. Carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein are equally effective at promoting fat loss and improving blood lipids . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005)
Bray GA, et al. Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating: a randomized controlled trial . JAMA. (2012)
Noakes M, et al. Effect of an energy-restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005)
Keogh JB, et al. Long-term weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors are not different following weight loss on carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein in obese hyperinsulinaemic men and women . Br J Nutr. (2007)
Farnsworth E, et al. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2003)
Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on weight control and cardiovascular risk markers in obese hyperinsulinemic subjects . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2004)
McLaughlin T, et al. Effects of moderate variations in macronutrient composition on weight loss and reduction in cardiovascular disease risk in obese, insulin-resistant adults . Am J Clin Nutr. (2006)
Sargrad KR, et al. Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus . J Am Diet Assoc. (2005)
Boden G, et al. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes . Ann Intern Med. (2005)
Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Effect of energy restriction, weight loss, and diet composition on plasma lipids and glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (1999)
Parker B, et al. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (2002)
Thomson RL, et al. The effect of a hypocaloric diet with and without exercise training on body composition, cardiometabolic risk profile, and reproductive function in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome . J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2008)
Strasser B, Spreitzer A, Haber P. Fat loss depends on energy deficit only, independently of the method for weight loss . Ann Nutr Metab. (2007)
Astrup A, Meinert Larsen T, Harper A. Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss . Lancet. (2004)
Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2000)
Well, it isn't really beside the point, since some foods give you calories without making you feel full or even while making you hungrier -- for instance, juice, according to this article..
It's beside the point in the evaluation of unhealthiness. Something making you hungry doesn't make it unhealthy. For people who can drink juice, but not overeat, it poses likely no special threat (and if it does, it will be hard to find that out in the current climate of calling calorie dense foods unhealthy).
That was going to be my suggestion. But I was thinking along the lines of orange juice, pomegranate juice and some tequila. Another interesting combo is OJ, pineapple juice, pomegranate, coconut rum and regular rum.
Sugar causes a blood sugar roller coaster with an energy crash at 2-3 hours that appears to be specifically designed to get us to over eat. In nature sugar exists in large quantities only during the short period of fruit being in season, and thus it makes sense there would be a mechanism to get us to over eat during the limited window of fruit availability.
Sugar triggers our “eat it before it rots” mechanism.
Does anyone else have about a 40% success rate on clicking Twitter links? Maybe I'm rate-limited because I don't have an account, but the level of reliability I see clicking a few links a day isn't exactly compelling.
I'm getting "twitter takes too long to load" instead of the tweet half the time on mobile. Then I have to refresh to see the tweet.
My browser has to load 90 JavaScript files totaling in 20 gigabytes to display a 140 character string and fails along the way. And all the engineering brains at twitter couldn't make it so that it would just try again on its own. It's like they're trying to convince people to stay away from the platform.
I love the strange looks we get when we tell extended family that our 1.5y old and 4y old kids don't drink juice. I had this exact conversation with a cousin of mine last week. She checked in with me before giving my child juice. When I told her we didn't give our kids juice this is how the conversation went:
Q: "They don't drink juice? What do they drink?"
A: "Water."
Q: "Just water?"
A: "Yep. If you want to get fancy they also drink soda water or water with lemon."
She looked judgy and baffled at how hard-ass my wife and I were about juice. But juice is straight calories in the form of sugar. There's no fibre to slow absorption like you'd get with eating the whole fruit. It's not much better, calorically speaking, than soda.
And in addition to being unhealthy, having young kids wired on sugar also makes our life harder.
To add, the "no sugar added" thing is wholly misleading because there are fruit concentrates that companies can add that are basically sugar substitutes. It's technically not "sugar added" but it's basically filled with healthy dollop of fructose (which is worse than sucrose but I'm too lazy to cite a reference).
Grape juice is the notorious one here. It doesn't have a very strong taste on its own, so when blended basically serves as a not-technically-added-sugar source of added sugar.
I recently saw a ginger-flavored carbonated that boasted of the percent juice. I was surprised by the number (30%?), and when I looked at the ingredients I saw that the juice was not mostly ginger. It was grape juice.
I understand that when I see “cranberry cocktail”, there’s a bunch of sweet juice mixed in. I didn’t realize that drinks of other flavors have so much clandestine grape juice — which is basically sugar.
Yep, buy something like "kiwi-strawberry-guava" juice, apple or pear juice is usually the first ingredient. I wouldn't be surprised if most juices are flavored versions of the same base.
In France the wording 100% juice mans that that the liquid is directly from pressed fruit. No concentrates, nothing added. The only operation can be filtration and pasteurization.
And I bet your kids don't exhibit signs of ADD, people probably wonder what magical app you found that makes your kids well behaved while theirs drinks 2 gallons of juice a day and are climbing the walls
Your last note about kids being wired on sugar, while pervasive and seemingly anecdotally supported, has not been proven out in the literature. Sugar has not been conclusively found to cause hyperactivity.
My son goes nuts when he has sugar (like ice cream or a cupcake), full stop.
Has it not been shown in the literature because no one has tried an appropriately rigorous experiment, or because the appropriately rigorous experiment showed a different conclusion?
It's actually the example that Aaron Carroll (one of the co-authors of the article) used to explain what an RCT is, and why it's one of the strongest study designs possible.
I believe you, and I've seen what appears to be the same effect first-hand, but it has not been replicated in controlled environments. Here's a non-scientific article which cites several studies which failed to find a correlation: https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/the-sugar-high-is-actually-ju...
Ignoring the lunacy of wasting decades of training to prove (I hope, to everyone) the blindingly obvious, this would potentially be a real fun experiment to design.
Yeah, when our toddler is given juice, we dilute it with water for her. We’re trying to teach her that plain fruit juice is too sweet when drunk alone.
I typically drink carbonated water with just a little juice, for flavor.
Have kids and give them sugar. It absolutely is a verifiable thing. You get ~2-3 hours of hyperactivity/tunnelvision followed by the crying crash to nap combo. Every parent knows this. It's real and repeatable.
Hmm, this doesn't really verify it because the average person's kids might have been trained by now to react in a certain way after eating sugar. If you expect yourself to react a certain way after eating a food, you just might.
Similar to how a lot of kids are afraid of lightning because you are.
> In my favorite of these studies, children were divided into two groups. All of them were given a sugar-free beverage to drink. But half the parents were told that their child had just had a drink with sugar. Then, all of the parents were told to grade their children’s behavior. Not surprisingly, the parents of children who thought their children had drunk a ton of sugar rated their children as significantly more hyperactive. This myth is entirely in parents’ heads. We see it because we believe it.
My only difference is prune juice. Because my 2.5yo has only had other juices a couple of times, he thinks prune juice is a huge treat. I give him 2-3oz as a quick and easy source of fiber to promote regularity which is rrrreally helpful when potty training (side note: parenting is sooo dignified).
> It's not much better, calorically speaking, than soda.
It's a whole lot better nutritionally. Complete juice abstinence is silly unless your child seriously struggles with weight issues. A 6oz glass once in a while isn't going to give them diabetes.
No, it says: "And we doubt you’d take a multivitamin if it contained 10 teaspoons of sugar." I'd sooner take that multivitamin than a pure sugar tablet. Soda has zero nutritional value.
What if you drank neither, though? There's a lot of talk in the past 10 or so years about how you're not really benefiting from vitamins either because you get enough vitamins in your diet.
Juice is way easier to preserve. Also, less messy to consume.
If apples or oranges can last a week in a basket, grapes, or peaches, or many other fruit would not. So it's easy to convince yourself that juice is almost like the fruit, or at least lets you feel some of its pleasant taste.
Like many things, it's higher concentration than our bodies are naturally adapted to, so it's easy to over-consume (a pint instead of a half a cup).
It seems people are trained to believe that food always needs some kind of processing. I often eat raw bell peppers and tomato pieces at work and judging from the comments people seem to never even have thought of that as possibility.
Right now the best are bottled teas like "Honest Tea" for $3 a pop at lunch. You can get something much better by buying some nice tea and brewing it yourself. And it probably costs only 5 cents instead of $3.
For me it's raw broccoli. Most people seem to think it's supposed to be bitter raw and I am still rather confused about that since broccoli is not bitter at all to me.
Because juice tastes good. Fruit tastes good, and juice is a 10x more cool, watery, refreshing, and sweet. Anyone who says chugging a half litre of cold apple juice after a long run isn’t heaven on earth is dead inside.
Next, let's dispel the notion that fat is bad for you. It's the strangest thing to me to see parents feeding their kids "skim milk", which is really just milk flavored water, because whole milk "has fat" and therefore must make their children fat.
I only drank whole milk as a kid. A glass with every meal. My parents never bought any juice or soda and me and all of my siblings grew up healthy and strong with no cavities or health issues.
It makes me cringe seeing overweight children glugging down sodas, but it makes me equally sad seeing horribly skinny children who's bones could be broken by the wind.
That's simply not true about skim milk. It has just as much protein and calcium as whole milk. Maybe you and your siblings would have been even healthier with skim, maybe not, but it's not possible to deduce anything from your experience.
Skim milk typically doesn't contain vitamin A and fat is essential for helping our bodies absorb the vitamins and nutrients we consume. Plus, as a source of energy and calories, fat is much better than sugar for children because it takes longer to break down which aids diet regulation.
The article talks about this, but the reason it's so easy to binge on snack foods like juice is because they don't make you feel full and so you continue eating. Similarly, you'll feel much fuller if you drink whole milk versus skim milk, which is great for children who can't control impulses very well.
You’re rolling too many things into one here. The concept that fat makes people fat as a direct consequence is false, but only if the calories gained from that fat are reduced elsewhere. Fat contains very dense calories, so consuming fat can lead to too many calories which leads to getting fat. That is not to say that a diet should be devoid of fat and replaced with sugar, just that the overall diet needs to be balanced with both, and not exceed the number of calories required. Any amount of “glugging down sodas” is certainly a problem, no matter if you’re also getting fat in your diet elsewhere.
On to the milk thing... Your complaint about skim milk presupposes that the whole variety is actually meant to be consumed by humans. By “meant” I assume that evolution has formulated the milk of various mamamals to the offspring of their own respective species. So for that definition of “meant”, how can one say that milk formulated for bovine offspring is meant for human consumption as is? Would not the ratios of fat, sugars, vitamins, etc. be out of balance with what a human needs? Right away, the widespread problem of lactose intolerance in humans, even many babies, upholds this view even a little. So why shouldn’t the formulation of cow’s milk as consumed by humans be altered outside of its natural state?
Milk is homogenized so I am not sure how close 3.5% is to ideal. But I would say that humans are probably pretty well adapted to drinking their milk because they've been doing it for millennia.
The thing about fat is that it can increase feelings of satiety.
> So for that definition of “meant”, how can one say that milk formulated for bovine offspring is meant for human consumption as is?
Because we literally mutated ourselves to drink the stuff? I get that a lot of people don't have the gene to process milk... But a non-insignificant amount of people do.
So, if your not lactose intolarent, we are "meant" to drink milk into adulthood.
For breakfast, my wife and I squeeze a single grapefruit and single orange (the old fashioned, manual and unfiltered way, keeping any "bits") and split and drink that. It's not much to look at - a little over half a short glass each. Basically we have the juice and some of the fibre from a single piece of fruit each.
If you think about how much fruit it takes to create a 600ml bottle of juice its crazy. If you couldn't stomach eating half a dozen oranges in a sitting, why would you think that drinking that much juice at a time (sometimes multiple times a day) would be good for you?
Serious question: Why not eat the grapefruit and/or orange? That seems like less work, more food, and healthier (and personally I think it tastes better, but YMMV).
Fair question. I agree that the fruit itself tastes nicer. I could say I want to avoid having too much fibre (as I get plenty from other sources), but in reality I just find peeling oranges a PITA and contrary to your claim I find it quicker to cut in half and twist each half a few times on a juicer (plus I can just knock back the output).
You know, I've almost forgotten about this problem. Buy clementines; they are a kind of orange which happen to be easy to peel. For more ease, at the store you can feel which ones have looser skin; it's no exaggeration that they are easier to peel than plastic wrappers off of processed food. They don't even make a mess - no dripping, no sticky fingers, etc. I can't recommend them enough - one of the wonders of nature, or of selective breeding.
Seems like a drastic way to say like that juice is not as healthy as eating fruit, and is not a substitute for solid fruit. Also that it has a lot of sugar.
When you see this headline, you’d think they might be including fresh squeeze juice from a variety of fruits and vegetables. They seem to only be talking about things like Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid and Walmart apple juice that the average American feeds their children. I thought they might be talking about juice bars. It makes me wonder, have the authors ever heard about the gigantic national trend of drinking fresh juice? Because they don’t seem to be referring to it at all.
I don’t know why they don’t suggest that you could give your kids less sugary juice, fresh squeeze juice, orange juice from things other than oranges, grapes or apples. One thing they don’t seem to realize is that many parents give their kids HFCS soda pop. I could think of many parents who believe the only reason to not give their children mountain dew is the caffeine. It is a little healthier to give them juice. Especially the 100% fruit juice they’re condemning, which is a better grade even than most juice on the shelves.
I would agree that the pasteurized, filtered, old sugary juices sold in plastic bottles in grocery stores are not very healthy. But they contain far fewer enzymes and vitamins and fiber than fresh squeezed juice. Maybe they should recommend that parents buy a juicer, and give their kids diluted juice that also includes vegetables in addition to sweet fruit.
Personally, I have been on a very restricted diet, mainly liquids all year. I don’t have been drinking fresh squeezed juice to solve my caloric deficit, but don’t binge on it or buy store juice because it’s clear to me that the main component is sugar and I don’t want to tempt type 2 diabetes. I’d much rather eat the whole fruits and vegetables if I could, but in the meantime, it’s hard to believe that the juice of 5 apples, a bunch of chard, a beet, 2 carrots, a stick of ginger and some celery would harm me or children.
> it’s hard to believe that the juice of 5 apples, a bunch of chard, a beet, 2 carrots, a stick of ginger and some celery would harm me or children.
Is this what each person gets or what you share with your children? That juice alone would contain around 100g of sugar, which regardless of where it comes from would be a lot for a single person, especially considering it won't be their only source of sugar in a day.
The problem with juices is that they're very easy to consume compared to their whole food counterpart and keep you full for a shorter time. I'm not sure exactly what definition you're using for fresh squeezed juice, but if you're not using the whole fruit then you're likely losing a lot of the fiber that makes whole fruit healthier
My definition of fresh squeezed juice is putting whole fruit into a juicer.
As far as 100g of sugar, yes, and that hypothetical stack of produce which is more than one person, especially a kid, would consume in a serving. And how much is in one can of Coke, which I’ve seen people give their children? 35 grams? In a far less healthy form, with anti-nutrients and no vitamins. This was the point of half my comment.
No, I would not feed that entire amount to a child at once. Yes, I would feel comfortable consuming it.
If it’s not their entire source of sugar all day - why not? Sure, some people feed their kids eat mcdonald’s ice cream while the doctors here demonize fruit. I’d think they could at least once mentioned that the 100% whole fruit juice that they are slandering is healthier than the sort of product some parents consider appropriate: http://texas-wholesale.com/images/products/80007%20-4236-BUG...
“The problem with juices is that they're very easy to consume compared to their whole food counterpart and keep you full for a shorter time. I'm not sure exactly what definition you're using for fresh squeezed juice, but if you're not using the whole fruit then you're likely losing a lot of the fiber that makes whole fruit healthier”
You just summed up this entire article, like I did. Yes, juice is high in sugar, and it’s healthier to eat whole fruit because of the fiber.
I have a severe swallowing disorder btw, so I can’t consume whole fruit at all.
Most people are there kids would never, ever sit down and eat a raw beet, two carrots, five apples, and so forth. Nutritionally, even without the fiber, the vitamins and enzymes of eating fresh raw fruits and vegetables are worth it, despite the sugar, especially for people who eat the typical awful American diet of fast and frozen food. American dietary analysis often includes a myopic focus on one or two macro nutrients, and this is a great example.
Isn't the fact that you can consume way more fruit than normal through juice precisely the problem?
If you're thinking about a meal replacement, rather than a replacement for water, a smoothie would probably be more filling (although still not as much as fresh fruit, I don't think).
No, I am suggesting that people consume healthy juice to replace entirely unhealthy drinks or sugar in snacks which many children consume, not meals. And sure, if you want to replace a meal, make it a smoothie by throwing in some protein powder or dairy, and putting some of the fruit directly in the blender. But that’s kind of a different topic.
I think what's at issue is that parents are not thinking of juice as a treat -- they're thinking of it as something healthy for their children to drink all the time. In fact, it's, at best, a marginal improvement over soda and, because it does not fill them, will not serve to replace snacks.
I think that is true for the junk food juice which realistically, is what most parents will serve their kids. I'm referring to anything in grocery stores in plastic bottles, which is 95% of what's on the market. Filtered, pasteurized, made from concentrate, blended with grape juice, tainted with pesticide residue and plastic.
It is less true for parents giving their kid fresh carrot or beet juice, for many reasons that this article ignores because western medical orthodoxy is not interested. Vitamins, enzymes, healthier forms of sugar and other nutrients present in actual juice more than make up for the presence of sugar, in my opinion.
Of course this should be part of a truly healthy diet, which almost no parent offers their child in the US because they have no idea what it is and don't eat that way themselves.
Fresh squeezed won’t be appreciably healthier (on the sugar dimension). What makes juice unhealthy compared to intact fruits and vegetables is the mechanical separation of sugar from the fiber water matrix.
This makes the sugar all available instantly.
When you eat the whole carrot, your digestive system has to tear away the layers of the matrix one at a time to get the sugar out. When you juice you remove the matrix mechanically.
Yes, I’m aware of that. However, it’s important to compare it to products that are simply water with partially synthetic corn syrup, which millions of children consume regularly every single day. We are talking about drinks, after all, and it seems somewhat absurd to be suggesting that anyone eat solid fruit when they want to have a drink.
I don’t think anyone is saying “eat fruit when you want a drink”. The point is that while fruit is relatively healthy fruit juice is relatively unhealthy, on par with sugar sweetened sodas.
Similar to how beets are relatively healthy and pure sugar (derived from beets) is relatively unhealthy.
I disagree for a variety of reasons. Fresh juice made from actual fruit or preferably vegetables contains vitamins, enzymes, healthier forms of sugar and other nutrients which make up for the presence of sugar, in my opinion. As for the filtered, pasteurized, sugar laden, pesticide tainted brew in plastic bottles that 95% of people and grocery stores consider 'juice', I agree that nobody should ever consume that, under any circumstances. I'm sure that is what these doctors are thinking of since they don't seem to mention or be aware of actual juicing.
I'm not sure at all what the alternative proposed for a drink is - water? tea? with no sweetener? I'm still confident that carrot, beet, tomato, whatever juice (diluted... like people normally do) is a better choice than just about anything with sweetener in it.
The process of juicing any fruit means breaking down and often removing the fiber, which leads to free sugars that are easily and quickly absorbed into the blood. Even if the fiber remains, it is no longer enclosing the sugar so any benefit is removed. That is the entire problem with juice and most any drink that contains large amounts of sugar. The process of digesting whole fruit is slow and difficult and causes the sugar to be released slowly, which is what avoids the health problems associated with sugary drinks. This is why juice is essentially the same as soda in this regard.
Whether juice bars are a trend or not is really irrelevant to the issue, and it would not be the first time someone tried to sell people things that were bad for them under the guise of it being healthy.
I'm also disgusted by the "it's natural" platitude some persons spout.
But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to drink the latest clinically unproven science experiment like, for example, Coke Zero. Nobody has a clue what those small molecules actually do besides the obvious.
I had that discussion several times. Last time I was told that apple juice is less healthy than apples because of the fibres (missing in the juice).
After I have done some "research" on my own I found out that 100g Apple only contains 1g of fiber, so I guess the difference can't be that huge.
In animal testing it was found that mice who ate a diet that included apples had up to 50 percent less tumors. Now the exact same effect was achieved by giving them apple juice, with non-filtered apple juice being more effective, supposedly due to a higher concentration of Procyanidins.
The major effect isn’t how much fiber, but that the sugar is trapped in a matrix of fiber and water. Your digestive system has to tear away the outer layers to get to the sugar, this slows the absorption of the sugar and reduces the glycemic index.
In juice the matrix has been mechanically separated so the glycemic effect is almost exactly the same as eating ten spoonfuls of white sugar.
What about the difference between Fructose, Sucrose and Glucose? Fruit usually has a quite high ratio of Fructose as far as I know. Does it matter? It doesn't even get mentioned in the article.
146 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 256 ms ] threadWhat you happen to overeat is beside the point.
But at that point it would also be quite harmful to the kidneys
Seriously though if you don’t have kidney disease then you really don’t have to worry about protein consumption.
The average person gains an extra 1 to 2 pounds a year. It takes 6,000 calories to gains 2 pounds. This is about ~16.5 calories a day. About a fifth of a slice of bread.
This is an imbalance of energy, on a 2000 calorie diet, of less than 1%.
The whole point of something like calorie counting is so that this is no longer some automated, subconscious process.
How does the new model explain people losing weight in adverse conditions?
I'm watching someone steadily lose weight via calories-in-calories-out model in front of me right now.
The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions.
Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target.
It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight.
Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496172/ https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.201...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-calorie-...
It starts with "Since the early 1900s, medical research has shown that people do lose weight on calorie-restricted diets — in the short term. But in most cases, they quickly gain it back..." and goes onto the studies on things that actually do work long-term, like fixing your sleep, fixing your stress, and limiting carbohydrates in your diet.
So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The point of any of these things, CICO or otherwise, is that you do them for your lifetime as a lifestyle change.
Someone is talking about protein conversion, but I expect it is just harder to eat excess calories of meat. The 2 pounds of beef a day it would take many people to maintain body weight is a lot of beef to sit and eat.
We do? Last I checked we had a century of people being told that fat is bad and they should eat the fat-free high-sugar yogurt. CICO is still a hotly debated concept in many circles. Such as this thread.
Calorie restriction doesn't tell you what you should or should not be eating. That is the beauty of it. It doesn't tell you what you do. It doesn't resign you to eating spinach for the rest of your life. It doesn't say you can never have ice cream.
> Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death"...
Is a strawman nobody suggested. Any diet that it seems you would prefer, that is more detailed/restrictive in its advice is nonetheless still a calorie restriction diet because nothing else would actually work.
Calorie restriction and counting is a request for introspection. If it gets you to simply realize that big macs are really calorie dense, and that you'd break your daily limit with 3 of them, it has done its job. It's up to you to figure out if you have enough willpower to still include big macs in your diet. Mostly overweight people just have no idea how much they're actually eating.
- If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight no matter what the source of those calories are.
- psychological, what you eat will make it easier to maintain a calorie balance and that varies based on the individual.
For me, I ate like crap from the time I was 25-35 but maintained a healthy weight and a decent physique as a part time fitness instructor who worked out 12 times a week.
I like working out so it doesn’t take discipline to work out and my wife will work out with me occasionally but she prefers going to the gym and taking classes.
I stopped working out consistently for five years and my weight ballooned.
I then tried to eat better but I couldn’t get the level of discipline necessary to lose weight.
Then we moved into a house, I converted a room into a home gym and started exercising for 2 hours a day 3-4 times a week that burned about 1500 calories per workout. I got back down to my fitness instructor weight and size in 7 months. I also had to make it point not to eat more to compensate, and only “cheat” on the weekend.
All that being said, when I was teaching and even now I tell people that they can’t exercise thier way to weight loss. Most people don’t have the stamina, the discipline, or the time to work out enough to burn 4000-5000 calories a week and maintain a calorie balance.
But what complicates the situation is that what you eat affects how much you crave food, and what foods you crave, and how much energy you have, and how you sleep, etc.
Sugar seems to be bad on all of these ancillary fronts.
Important in this context to me would mean: if I don't eat spinach, or if I skip breakfast, I will NOT lose weight on a calorie deficit. Is that what you mean by important what you eat and when you eat, or something else?
You will always lose weight on a deficit but depending on when you eat the amount for a deficit will be different.
Same for the type of food. From my own observation I will gain weight if I eat only a few pretzels daily even if everything else is the same. I assume they cause my digestive system to lose efficiency.
That’s considered a myth that’s been debunked ages ago.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-truth-myth-eating-n...
If I come home, work out and then it’s late and I’m hungry,I’ll often just go to bed and not eat. It’s much easier dealing with hunger when you’re sleep than skipping breakfast and then trying to concentrate at work. It’s also, by definition, easier to resist temptation when you’re sleep....
Is there evidence that this is sufficiently impactful that it should be brought up? I.e., if a person is steadily losing weight, but eating not super healthy, should we tell them to stop?
Overweight people often already don't eat very nutritiously so I'm not sure if it's a large impact. Basically afraid of "perfect is the enemy of good" here. Obesity is a very dominating factor as far as unhealth goes, and many "unhealthy" foods are often marked so because they link back to obesity.
Your turn. Please do try to disprove the law of conservation of energy.
Swinburn B, Sacks G, Ravussin E. Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity . Am J Clin Nutr. (2009)
Lack of evidence for high fructose corn syrup as the cause of the obesity epidemic Leibel RL, et al. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition . Am J Clin Nutr. (1992)
Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets . Am J Clin Nutr. (1996)
Golay A, et al. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (1996)
Luscombe-Marsh ND, et al. Carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein are equally effective at promoting fat loss and improving blood lipids . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005)
Bray GA, et al. Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating: a randomized controlled trial . JAMA. (2012)
Noakes M, et al. Effect of an energy-restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005)
Keogh JB, et al. Long-term weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors are not different following weight loss on carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein in obese hyperinsulinaemic men and women . Br J Nutr. (2007)
Farnsworth E, et al. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2003)
Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on weight control and cardiovascular risk markers in obese hyperinsulinemic subjects . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2004)
McLaughlin T, et al. Effects of moderate variations in macronutrient composition on weight loss and reduction in cardiovascular disease risk in obese, insulin-resistant adults . Am J Clin Nutr. (2006)
Sargrad KR, et al. Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus . J Am Diet Assoc. (2005)
Boden G, et al. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes . Ann Intern Med. (2005)
Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Effect of energy restriction, weight loss, and diet composition on plasma lipids and glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (1999)
Parker B, et al. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (2002)
Thomson RL, et al. The effect of a hypocaloric diet with and without exercise training on body composition, cardiometabolic risk profile, and reproductive function in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome . J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2008)
Strasser B, Spreitzer A, Haber P. Fat loss depends on energy deficit only, independently of the method for weight loss . Ann Nutr Metab. (2007)
Astrup A, Meinert Larsen T, Harper A. Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss . Lancet. (2004)
Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2000)
When fermented, sugars break down, hence the saying that Kombucha is vinegar soda.
Juice has a lot of sugar.
Sugar is very calorie dense.
[I'm on the lookout for direct sugar-specifically-is-bad studies so I hope to get spammed with some]
Sugar causes a blood sugar roller coaster with an energy crash at 2-3 hours that appears to be specifically designed to get us to over eat. In nature sugar exists in large quantities only during the short period of fruit being in season, and thus it makes sense there would be a mechanism to get us to over eat during the limited window of fruit availability.
Sugar triggers our “eat it before it rots” mechanism.
https://twitter.com/aaronecarroll/status/1015682328411230208
My browser has to load 90 JavaScript files totaling in 20 gigabytes to display a 140 character string and fails along the way. And all the engineering brains at twitter couldn't make it so that it would just try again on its own. It's like they're trying to convince people to stay away from the platform.
Q: "They don't drink juice? What do they drink?"
A: "Water."
Q: "Just water?"
A: "Yep. If you want to get fancy they also drink soda water or water with lemon."
She looked judgy and baffled at how hard-ass my wife and I were about juice. But juice is straight calories in the form of sugar. There's no fibre to slow absorption like you'd get with eating the whole fruit. It's not much better, calorically speaking, than soda.
And in addition to being unhealthy, having young kids wired on sugar also makes our life harder.
I understand that when I see “cranberry cocktail”, there’s a bunch of sweet juice mixed in. I didn’t realize that drinks of other flavors have so much clandestine grape juice — which is basically sugar.
In France the wording 100% juice mans that that the liquid is directly from pressed fruit. No concentrates, nothing added. The only operation can be filtration and pasteurization.
http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar...
Has it not been shown in the literature because no one has tried an appropriately rigorous experiment, or because the appropriately rigorous experiment showed a different conclusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkr9YsmrPAI
I typically drink carbonated water with just a little juice, for flavor.
That's not a thing.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/sugar-and-candy-...
(From one of the co-authors of this article)
Similar to how a lot of kids are afraid of lightning because you are.
From the article:
> In my favorite of these studies, children were divided into two groups. All of them were given a sugar-free beverage to drink. But half the parents were told that their child had just had a drink with sugar. Then, all of the parents were told to grade their children’s behavior. Not surprisingly, the parents of children who thought their children had drunk a ton of sugar rated their children as significantly more hyperactive. This myth is entirely in parents’ heads. We see it because we believe it.
But regardless, the crash is horrible to behold.
It's a whole lot better nutritionally. Complete juice abstinence is silly unless your child seriously struggles with weight issues. A 6oz glass once in a while isn't going to give them diabetes.
If apples or oranges can last a week in a basket, grapes, or peaches, or many other fruit would not. So it's easy to convince yourself that juice is almost like the fruit, or at least lets you feel some of its pleasant taste.
Like many things, it's higher concentration than our bodies are naturally adapted to, so it's easy to over-consume (a pint instead of a half a cup).
Right now the best are bottled teas like "Honest Tea" for $3 a pop at lunch. You can get something much better by buying some nice tea and brewing it yourself. And it probably costs only 5 cents instead of $3.
I only drank whole milk as a kid. A glass with every meal. My parents never bought any juice or soda and me and all of my siblings grew up healthy and strong with no cavities or health issues.
It makes me cringe seeing overweight children glugging down sodas, but it makes me equally sad seeing horribly skinny children who's bones could be broken by the wind.
The article talks about this, but the reason it's so easy to binge on snack foods like juice is because they don't make you feel full and so you continue eating. Similarly, you'll feel much fuller if you drink whole milk versus skim milk, which is great for children who can't control impulses very well.
Here's a great video on the topic from one of the co-authors of this article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzyFZcuHmeI
On to the milk thing... Your complaint about skim milk presupposes that the whole variety is actually meant to be consumed by humans. By “meant” I assume that evolution has formulated the milk of various mamamals to the offspring of their own respective species. So for that definition of “meant”, how can one say that milk formulated for bovine offspring is meant for human consumption as is? Would not the ratios of fat, sugars, vitamins, etc. be out of balance with what a human needs? Right away, the widespread problem of lactose intolerance in humans, even many babies, upholds this view even a little. So why shouldn’t the formulation of cow’s milk as consumed by humans be altered outside of its natural state?
The thing about fat is that it can increase feelings of satiety.
Only humans of Northern European descent. Everyone else is lactose intolerant after they are weaned.
Because we literally mutated ourselves to drink the stuff? I get that a lot of people don't have the gene to process milk... But a non-insignificant amount of people do.
So, if your not lactose intolarent, we are "meant" to drink milk into adulthood.
If you think about how much fruit it takes to create a 600ml bottle of juice its crazy. If you couldn't stomach eating half a dozen oranges in a sitting, why would you think that drinking that much juice at a time (sometimes multiple times a day) would be good for you?
You know, I've almost forgotten about this problem. Buy clementines; they are a kind of orange which happen to be easy to peel. For more ease, at the store you can feel which ones have looser skin; it's no exaggeration that they are easier to peel than plastic wrappers off of processed food. They don't even make a mess - no dripping, no sticky fingers, etc. I can't recommend them enough - one of the wonders of nature, or of selective breeding.
When you see this headline, you’d think they might be including fresh squeeze juice from a variety of fruits and vegetables. They seem to only be talking about things like Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid and Walmart apple juice that the average American feeds their children. I thought they might be talking about juice bars. It makes me wonder, have the authors ever heard about the gigantic national trend of drinking fresh juice? Because they don’t seem to be referring to it at all.
I don’t know why they don’t suggest that you could give your kids less sugary juice, fresh squeeze juice, orange juice from things other than oranges, grapes or apples. One thing they don’t seem to realize is that many parents give their kids HFCS soda pop. I could think of many parents who believe the only reason to not give their children mountain dew is the caffeine. It is a little healthier to give them juice. Especially the 100% fruit juice they’re condemning, which is a better grade even than most juice on the shelves.
I would agree that the pasteurized, filtered, old sugary juices sold in plastic bottles in grocery stores are not very healthy. But they contain far fewer enzymes and vitamins and fiber than fresh squeezed juice. Maybe they should recommend that parents buy a juicer, and give their kids diluted juice that also includes vegetables in addition to sweet fruit.
Personally, I have been on a very restricted diet, mainly liquids all year. I don’t have been drinking fresh squeezed juice to solve my caloric deficit, but don’t binge on it or buy store juice because it’s clear to me that the main component is sugar and I don’t want to tempt type 2 diabetes. I’d much rather eat the whole fruits and vegetables if I could, but in the meantime, it’s hard to believe that the juice of 5 apples, a bunch of chard, a beet, 2 carrots, a stick of ginger and some celery would harm me or children.
Is this what each person gets or what you share with your children? That juice alone would contain around 100g of sugar, which regardless of where it comes from would be a lot for a single person, especially considering it won't be their only source of sugar in a day.
The problem with juices is that they're very easy to consume compared to their whole food counterpart and keep you full for a shorter time. I'm not sure exactly what definition you're using for fresh squeezed juice, but if you're not using the whole fruit then you're likely losing a lot of the fiber that makes whole fruit healthier
As far as 100g of sugar, yes, and that hypothetical stack of produce which is more than one person, especially a kid, would consume in a serving. And how much is in one can of Coke, which I’ve seen people give their children? 35 grams? In a far less healthy form, with anti-nutrients and no vitamins. This was the point of half my comment.
No, I would not feed that entire amount to a child at once. Yes, I would feel comfortable consuming it.
If it’s not their entire source of sugar all day - why not? Sure, some people feed their kids eat mcdonald’s ice cream while the doctors here demonize fruit. I’d think they could at least once mentioned that the 100% whole fruit juice that they are slandering is healthier than the sort of product some parents consider appropriate: http://texas-wholesale.com/images/products/80007%20-4236-BUG...
“The problem with juices is that they're very easy to consume compared to their whole food counterpart and keep you full for a shorter time. I'm not sure exactly what definition you're using for fresh squeezed juice, but if you're not using the whole fruit then you're likely losing a lot of the fiber that makes whole fruit healthier”
You just summed up this entire article, like I did. Yes, juice is high in sugar, and it’s healthier to eat whole fruit because of the fiber.
I have a severe swallowing disorder btw, so I can’t consume whole fruit at all.
Most people are there kids would never, ever sit down and eat a raw beet, two carrots, five apples, and so forth. Nutritionally, even without the fiber, the vitamins and enzymes of eating fresh raw fruits and vegetables are worth it, despite the sugar, especially for people who eat the typical awful American diet of fast and frozen food. American dietary analysis often includes a myopic focus on one or two macro nutrients, and this is a great example.
If you're thinking about a meal replacement, rather than a replacement for water, a smoothie would probably be more filling (although still not as much as fresh fruit, I don't think).
It is less true for parents giving their kid fresh carrot or beet juice, for many reasons that this article ignores because western medical orthodoxy is not interested. Vitamins, enzymes, healthier forms of sugar and other nutrients present in actual juice more than make up for the presence of sugar, in my opinion.
Of course this should be part of a truly healthy diet, which almost no parent offers their child in the US because they have no idea what it is and don't eat that way themselves.
This makes the sugar all available instantly.
When you eat the whole carrot, your digestive system has to tear away the layers of the matrix one at a time to get the sugar out. When you juice you remove the matrix mechanically.
Similar to how beets are relatively healthy and pure sugar (derived from beets) is relatively unhealthy.
I'm not sure at all what the alternative proposed for a drink is - water? tea? with no sweetener? I'm still confident that carrot, beet, tomato, whatever juice (diluted... like people normally do) is a better choice than just about anything with sweetener in it.
Whether juice bars are a trend or not is really irrelevant to the issue, and it would not be the first time someone tried to sell people things that were bad for them under the guise of it being healthy.
For breakfast I make juice with kale (a bunch), a cucumber, carrots, and an apple. It's a lot healthier than most other American breakfasts.
- "Weed is good because it's 'natural'" "Yeah, but so are ricin, hemlock and nightshade."
- "Juice is made from fruit, fruit is good, therefore juice must be good." "Although it's not HFCS, juice has more carbs than soda."
But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to drink the latest clinically unproven science experiment like, for example, Coke Zero. Nobody has a clue what those small molecules actually do besides the obvious.
After I have done some "research" on my own I found out that 100g Apple only contains 1g of fiber, so I guess the difference can't be that huge.
In animal testing it was found that mice who ate a diet that included apples had up to 50 percent less tumors. Now the exact same effect was achieved by giving them apple juice, with non-filtered apple juice being more effective, supposedly due to a higher concentration of Procyanidins.
The major effect isn’t how much fiber, but that the sugar is trapped in a matrix of fiber and water. Your digestive system has to tear away the outer layers to get to the sugar, this slows the absorption of the sugar and reduces the glycemic index.
In juice the matrix has been mechanically separated so the glycemic effect is almost exactly the same as eating ten spoonfuls of white sugar.