Can anyone tell me about the Suger Busters diet?

[ChiiCeres]

I'm needing to dig up any dirt on it in order to verify whether or not something my teacher said is true. Is the Sugar Busters diet bad? Does it eliminate too much sugar and carbs? I was on it and it worked. But I'm worried that continued research and testing might have proved it not to be suitable for everyone.

Please help!

 

[DaveC426913]

There's really no way to get a solid answer on such a question, except that:

- All diets are some sort of compromise. All positive comments about a diet will say that the benefits outweigh the hazards, and all negative comments will say that the hazards are too great for the benefits.

- no diet is without risk

- no diet is suitable for everyone.

- In general, diets are only half (or less) of the equation to losing weight - the other half is increasing one's metabolism through exercise.


All you can expect is opinions.

 

[mgb_phys]

I came up with a really good diet.
On monday/wednesday/friday you exercise more and eat less.
On Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday you eat less and exercise more.
Then on sunday you take these special sugar pills that I can sell you for $LOTS

 

[Poop-Loops]

If you eliminate too many carbs, your brain gets angry, since it needs carbs to function. Lot of people report being fatigued due to the Atkin's diet (which apparently reduces carbs). If this is similar and you go too overboard, then you can expect the same.

Furthermore, Dave pointed out that you need to exercise. If you want to exercise, you need carbs. It'll be hard for you to do much if you don't have the fuel for it.

Lastly, you have to look at calories. Lots of foods high in carbs are actually high in calories. Things like junk food, sodas, etc. If you eliminate THOSE carbs, you are eliminating a boatload of calories, which IS good.

I'm on a diet myself, but mine is as simple as reducing all junk food as much as possible. I noticed that tiny amounts of junk food have huge amounts of calories. If you stay away from those, you eliminate a lot of calories from your diet in a safe way.

 

[Moonbear]

If you eliminate too many carbs, your brain gets angry, since it needs carbs to function. Lot of people report being fatigued due to the Atkin's diet (which apparently reduces carbs). If this is similar and you go too overboard, then you can expect the same.

Furthermore, Dave pointed out that you need to exercise. If you want to exercise, you need carbs. It'll be hard for you to do much if you don't have the fuel for it.

Lastly, you have to look at calories. Lots of foods high in carbs are actually high in calories. Things like junk food, sodas, etc. If you eliminate THOSE carbs, you are eliminating a boatload of calories, which IS good.

I'm on a diet myself, but mine is as simple as reducing all junk food as much as possible. I noticed that tiny amounts of junk food have huge amounts of calories. If you stay away from those, you eliminate a lot of calories from your diet in a safe way.

This is good advice. The biggest problem with diets that lead to quick weight loss is that you gain it all right back when you stop the diet, and they AREN'T healthy to stay on long term.

There are three problems the majority of people who are overweight have. One is that they simply eat too much of everything; simply cutting back portion sizes of your favorite foods could help a lot of people. Second, they eat too much "junk" food and sodas and high sugar juices and punches; snacks that are high in simple sugars and fats that pack on calories without much other nutritional benefit, and without really adequately making you feel full either, so you eat even more. Third, people don't exercise enough. Don't have time to go to the gym? No problem, park your car further out in the parking lot and walk the extra distance to the office, take stairs instead of elevators, when you go to a shopping center, park in one spot and walk to all the stores rather than moving your car every time you want to go to another store.

The goal of a diet shouldn't be to lose weight just so you can put it back on again when you stop the diet. The goal should be to improve your eating habits long term. Your "diet" should be what you will be able to eat the rest of your life so you get thin and STAY thin.

 

[rewebster]

That's very good advice MB--

I tried one time to explain that to a lady who asked about dieting once with the analogy of a three holed balloon.

One hole you put water in, second hole was for the normal letting out of water, and the third hole was for letting steam out when the water got hot. I said the steam was like exercise. With less water going in, and keeping all other factors the same, the balloon will get smaller. More water, bigger. More steam (exercise), smaller.

Either she didn't get it, or didn't want to get it.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Well losing weight and maintaining it are slightly different. Losing weight is definitely harder, since you need a calorie deficiency. Staying thin is a bit easier once you are already there, since you can intake slightly more calories without seeing any effect, since you just need to break even.

My goal right now is to lose a pound per week. Nothing major and I should reach my goal by summer. If you try to lose too much too fast, you burn out and even if you succeed, your body ends up with left over skin. Eww...

Just remember, NOTHING tastes as good as thing feels. :D

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't know about the diet, but I do know when I reduced carbs (mostly sugars) my health improved and I felt a lot better during the day. I've pretty much eliminated sweets from my diet. Minus a few serving of fresh fruit.

 

[rewebster]

I'm on a Skittles diet right now

 

[Moonbear]

I don't know about the diet, but I do know when I reduced carbs (mostly sugars) my health improved and I felt a lot better during the day. I've pretty much eliminated sweets from my diet. Minus a few serving of fresh fruit.

I'm not sure what specifically the Sugar Busters diet includes. If someone's carb intake is mostly white bread, donuts, sugar-laden cereals (of the cocoa puff variety), bottles of soda and big glasses of apple juice, then yeah, it's a benefit to cut that stuff out. But, what really concerned me was diets like Atkins (and I think they revised it to take this out since then, since it was too ridiculously unhealthy) where they would tell you not to eat even whole fruits as carbs. It went completely overboard and eliminated even healthy foods from the diet.

If you eat complex carbohydrates, in reasonable portions (you shouldn't be eating a loaf of bread a day), you'll feel much better than if you have a lot of simple sugars in your diet. Anyone with kids can appreciate best the "sugar crash" when someone has too much simple sugars and then about an hour later the rush is over and you are ready to sleep (and kids get super cranky). And, of course, once you get that sugar crash, all you want to do is lie around like a blob and do nothing, which means you're less active, probably are going to crave some more sugar to perk yourself back up, and repeat the vicious cycle.

If someone really wants to change their eating habits for the better, I recommend investing in a decent kitchen scale. Our sense of portions has become so distorted that I think you need something objective like a scale to help figure out how much to make of things. Of course, you'll be miserable if you immediately switch from eating whatever large amount of food has you gaining weight right down to proper, healthy portions, just because you need time to get used to those smaller portions. I'd recommend serving out what you'd normally eat, weigh it, figure out how many portions it REALLY is, and splitting the difference between that and a healthy diet (i.e., calculating out actualy calories and balancing nutrients according to the serving sizes on labels of things). And keep progressively doing that over a few weeks or months, depending on how far you have to go, and that way you get yourself used to smaller portions without completely feeling starved.

 

[jim mcnamara]

MB - there is also the glycemic index problem. The sweet junk food you mentioned has a high glycemic load because of goodies like high fructose corn syrup, whereas more normal foods have lower glycemic loads.

Long term high glycemic loads in the diet are one of the main precursors to type II diabetes. I had a colleaque who viewed this kind of food/diet as a public heath threat.
He studied the Navajo Reservation population and predicted 30%+ adults would be NIDDM patients there by 2000. He was right on.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm on a diet myself, but mine is as simple as reducing all junk food as much as possible. I noticed that tiny amounts of junk food have huge amounts of calories. If you stay away from those, you eliminate a lot of calories from your diet in a safe way.

Careful with this though - you would be astomished to find out how many supposedly healthy foods are just as bad as junk. Look at how much sugar, fat and calories are in supposedly healthier choices such as crackers, granola bars, muffins, bagels, etc.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I don't eat those, either. When I mean "junk food" I mean everything that is pre-packaged, essentially. The prepackaged things I do eat (like dairy and cereal), I do check like you recommended.

Yeah, I was surprised how many calories a simple granola bar has. It would take like 3 of those to be a decent snack for me, which is like 400 Calories, way more than needed for a simple snack.

 

[Moonbear]

Yeah, I was surprised how many calories a simple granola bar has. It would take like 3 of those to be a decent snack for me, which is like 400 Calories, way more than needed for a simple snack.

Yeah, I have some cereal bars (not granola bars) that are 90 calories each. This sounded decent until I opened them and realized how much sugar they've drizzled on them. They are a tasty snack, and I enjoy them as the occasional dessert, but I keep thinking, wouldn't it be so much better if more of those 90 calories came from cereal instead of from sugar frosting? It's actually hard to find granola bars anymore. I mean, there are lots of bars in the cereal aisle with granola in them, but they aren't what I think of as a granola bar. They have sugar and chocolate and marshmallows and peanut butter chips and frosting and very little granola. Granola bars didn't used to be sweet unless you got ones with some raisins in them, and they used to be dense, chewy things, not these fluffy, sticky things.

 

[DaveC426913]

I tried one time to explain that to a lady who asked about dieting once with the analogy of a three holed balloon.

One hole you put water in, second hole was for the normal letting out of water, and the third hole was for letting steam out when the water got hot. I said the steam was like exercise. With less water going in, and keeping all other factors the same, the balloon will get smaller. More water, bigger. More steam (exercise), smaller.

This is brilliant! It opens up a heretofore unrealized third option!

Don't change the water in, don't change the steam out, but widen that second hole - and poof! the balloon gets smaller!

I'll be back after I've done some experimenting...

 

[Moonbear]

This is brilliant! It opens up a heretofore unrealized third option!

Don't change the water in, don't change the steam out, but widen that second hole - and poof! the balloon gets smaller!

I'll be back after I've done some experimenting...

You might need to check out the Almighty Cleanse thread in S&D. Actually, this is precisely the approach bulemics use.

 

[W3pcq]

I know that eliminating sweets is a good diet choice. Some foods high in carbs like whole grains are important to your health though.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some foods high in carbs like whole grains are important to your health though.

Yes though I think as Moonbear points out, simply reducing the portion sizes is a highly underrated technique to achieve weight loss.

I may use wholegrain bread for my sandwiches, but when I make two at a time, 400 calories is still 400 calories.

 

[john16O]

^^true but it is all how those 400 calories are processed in the body^^

do it natural, 1 hours workout a day, working different muscle groups, eat healthier foods, and I am willing to bet that you will drop a good 10-20 pounds in a month

 

[Poop-Loops]

Yes, what kind of Calories you get is pretty important. If you get pure saturated fats and simple sugars, your body won't do much with it. Whole grains are awesome and if you are going to work it off later, they are a great source of carbs.

Avoid plain white bread, though. Bleah.

What also helps is spreading your meals out. Instead of eating 3 meals with big portions, eat 6 with smaller ones spread out throughout the day. It will boost your metabolism, so you'll end up burning more calories throughout the day.

 

[mgb_phys]

1 hours workout a day, working different muscle groups, eat healthier foods, and I am willing to bet that you will drop a good 10-20 pounds in a month

Unfortunately fat is a very good store of energy.

1 hour exercise, even running a 10km, is only around 700calories (depending on your weight) 1lb of fat is 3500 calories.
So if you ate a normal 2500 calorie diet the exercise alone would only lose 4 pounds if you did it every weekday for a month.
To lose 20lb you would also need to under-eat by 1800 calories as well!
So a 10km run 5days a week and only a no-fat subway a day and you will lose 20lbs a month.

Best ways of losing 20lbs quickly - amputation or dysentry.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Losing 20lbs a month is unhealthy. You didn't gain all that weight in the span of 2 or 3 months, so it's unreasonable to assume dropping it all in that timespan is a good idea.

 

[john16O]

1. People have different metabolism rates. Working out, running, lifting weight etc, speed up that metabolism. LOL, so your body does not absorb ALL those calories. LOL, if your theory was correct, than people who do not work out would gain weight fairly easily?
2. again i will reiterate myself, eating healthy meals, and working out EVERYDAY(different muscle groups) can result in a lose of 10-20 pounds in a month.
3. the best way to loose weight, is to eat 6-9 small meals/snacks throughout the day. This keeps your metabolism high and constantly running.
4. Drink lots of water
5. stay away from carbs!so you are wrong^^the people above me. for an obese person, losing 10-20 pounds in a month is not a very difficult thing to do. Please, get your facts straight!

 

[mgb_phys]

1. People have different metabolism rates. Working out, running, lifting weight etc, speed up that metabolism.

True but only once you have a significant anount of muscle.

LOL, if your theory was correct, than people who do not work out would gain weight fairly easily?

I present to you Mr. Modern America

2. again i will reiterate myself, eating healthy meals, and working out EVERYDAY(different muscle groups) can result in a lose of 10-20 pounds in a month.

Most strength workouts do not use much energy - you aren't going to lose weight bench pressing. Swimming / running are excellent ways of using up energy and of course are great for cardio fitness and general good health.

3. the best way to loose weight, is to eat 6-9 small meals/snacks throughout the day. This keeps your metabolism high and constantly running.
4. Drink lots of water
5. stay away from carbs!

All good advice - but you have to significantly under eat and do a large amount of exercise to lose a lot of weight.

There is of course a catch-22, how many overweight people are fit enough to do an hour of running or swimming every day! And ironically if you are only moderately overweight doing this much exercise is likely to make you put on weight since you will add muscle mass as you reduce fat!

Your advice is good but don't expect to lose 10-20lbs a month, as the previous poster said - you didn't put it on in a month!

 

[john16O]

o and poop-loops, people who are trying to lose 20 pounds in a month are already unhealthy, so how could losing the 20 pounds make an unhealthy person even more unhealthier? not quite understanding your logic, please explain.

 

[Moonbear]

Weinsier RL, Wilson LJ, Lee J. Medically safe rate of weight loss for the treatment of obesity: a guideline based on risk of gallstone formation. Am J Med. 1995 Feb;98(2):115-7.


OBJECTIVE: Currently recommended rates of weight loss for obese persons are not based on demonstrated health risks. The authors attempt to determine a medically safe rate of weight loss based on currently available data on the risk of gallstone formation during active weight loss. METHODS: All prospective studies published in the English language on the formation of gallstones in obese persons during active weight loss were reviewed and evaluated. A statistical analysis was performed using studies of at least 4 weeks' duration that included information on diet composition, rates of weight loss, length of follow-up, and incidence of gallstone formation. A statistical model was fit to the data from the studies that met the criteria. RESULTS: Nine subject groups derived from five published reports met the criteria for inclusion in the analysis. When the results of these groups were evaluated statistically, a curvilinear relationship between incidence of gallstone formation and rate of weight loss was demonstrated. The relationship was best described by an exponential regression curve, with an adjusted r2 of 0.98 and a dramatically increasing risk of gallstone formation at rates of weight loss above 1.5 kg per week. CONCLUSION: Risk of gallstone formation in obese persons during active weight loss seems to increase in an exponential fashion. The data suggest that rates of weight loss should not exceed an average of 1.5 kg per week.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Since everyone else is discussing pounds above, that would be weight loss rates shouldn't exceed 3.3 lbs/week, or about 13-15 lbs per month.

I wouldn't recommend trying to exceed that rate without a doctor-supervised weight-loss program.

 

[john16O]

mgb_phys, that is why this is easier said than done. I go to the gym all the time and see very unhealthy people walking and do all sorts of other kind of workouts. It is all up to the individual. If a person who weighs 5'11, 260 pounds were to follow what I said, which is very difficult than he/she could easily loose 10-20 pounds. Not that difficult. Question, and there is no way of verifying this, but how often do you work out?

 

[john16O]

lol well thank you moonbear, I believe this puts this debate to rest.

 

[Evo]

Not to mention that the rapid weight loss should not exceed a certain percentage of your body weight, and that wait loss is not consistant. You may lose one week and not the next, you may even gain wait, if you need to lose a lot of weight you will normally start to plateau (no weight loss) for weeks once you get within a certain precentage of your ideal weight.

A woman that only weighs 140 lbs is not going to see a weight loss of 20 lbs in one month without risking serious nutritional loss and health risks.

 

[john16O]

I am agreeing with you there, women do have lower metabolism rates than men, i apologize, I should have specified my domain

 

[chroot]

Keep in mind that 20 lbs of actual fat is equivalent to about 70,000 kcals. To burn that much fat, you'd need a calorie deficit of 2,333 kcals per day. Since the average adult female needs about 2,000 kcals/day to maintain weight, the only way such rapid weight loss could be possible is if the person literally does not eat at all for a month, and still manages to run for an hour each day.

Good luck staying alive!

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Keep in mind that 20 lbs of actual fat is equivalent to about 70,000 kcals. To burn that much fat, you'd need a calorie deficit of 2,333 kcals per day. Since the average adult female needs about 2,000 kcals/day to maintain weight, the only way such rapid weight loss could be possible is if the person literally does not eat at all for a month, and still manages to run for an hour each day.

Good luck staying alive!

- Warren

There is a flaw in this assumption. 2000 kcals/day is to maintain a healthy weight (and, really, for most women, it's lower than that...we're not all supermodel height). If you are obese due to excessive caloric intake, and restrict your calories down to only an 1800-2000 calorie diet, you will lose weight until you stabilize at the weight those calories will support. On the other hand, unless one is morbidly obese, you would be right that they aren't going to have THAT much excess caloric intake.

If someone is only 30 lbs overweight, it wouldn't be healthy to lose all of that in one or two months, and wouldn't likely be accomplished with a diet that would inspire lasting healthy eating. It would be better for them to set a goal of 5 lbs a month and try to lose the weight over 6 months. This is an easier goal to achieve, won't require so much calorie restriction as to feel constantly hungry (the biggest foe of diets), and can be accomplished by adjusting to good, life-long eating habits.

If you're more like 300 lbs overweight, you could lose 15 lbs a month, but are going to struggle with any sort of exercise routine until some of that weight is off to what your musculo-skeletal system can support. Someone that obese should be losing weight with a doctor's supervision, because there are plenty enough health problems with just being that weight (and people that overweight often wind up with nutrient deficiencies from very unhealthy food choices).

 

[chroot]

So, Moonbear... you're saying that the larger your body, the more calories it needs to maintain energy equilibrium? That surprises me, since fat is just stored in vaculoes in fat cells; the number of fat cells does not change. Do the fat cells consume more energy just because they have a larger glob of fat in their vacuoles?

I'd also think that fat people have a lower surface-area to volume ratio, and would lose body heat less rapidly. That means they would need fewer calories for homeostasis... and a very large portion of one's calorie intake is expended in simply maintaining body temperature.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

So, Moonbear... you're saying that the larger your body, the more calories it needs to maintain energy equilibrium? That surprises me, since fat is just stored in vaculoes in fat cells; the number of fat cells does not change. Do the fat cells consume more energy just because they have a larger glob of fat in their vacuoles?

Yes, and to maintain that fat glob. You're thinking like an engineer...build the building and once the construction is done, you don't put any more energy into maintaining it for a while. Every cell in the body is constantly doing something that requires energy. If you add tissue to the body through extra caloric intake, you need extra calories to maintain it too. Fat is more than just a storage cell too, it also produces and secretes hormones.

Wang P, Mariman E, Renes J, Keijer J The secretory function of adipocytes in the physiology of white adipose tissue. J Cell Physiol. 2008 Feb 8

White adipose tissue, previously regarded as a passive lipid storage site, is now viewed as a dynamic tissue. It has the capacity to actively communicate by sending and receiving different types of signals. An overview of these signals, the external modulators that affect adipose tissue and the secreted signaling molecules, the adipokines, is presented. The secretory function is highlighted in relation to energy metabolism, inflammation and the extracellular matrix and placed in the context of adipose tissue biology. We observe that the endocrine function of adipocytes receives much attention, while its paracrine and autocrine functions are underestimated. Also, we provide examples that species specificity should not be neglected. We conclude that adipose tissue primarily is an energy storage organ, well supported by its secretory function.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

It's really not true that the number of fat cells doesn't change either; this is a commonly spread myth.

Avram MM, Avram AS, James WD. Subcutaneous fat in normal and diseased states 3. Adipogenesis: from stem cell to fat cell. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007 Mar;56(3):472-92.

The quest for effective strategies to treat obesity has propelled fat research into an exploration of the molecular processes that drive adipocyte formation, and hence body fat mass. The development of obesity is dependent on the coordinated interplay of adipocyte hypertrophy (increased fat cell size), adipocyte hyperplasia (increased fat cell number), and angiogenesis. Evidence suggests that adipocyte hyperplasia, or adipogenesis, occurs throughout life, both in response to normal cell turnover as well as in response to the need for additional fat mass stores that arises when caloric intake exceeds nutritional requirements. Adipogenesis involves two major events-the recruitment and proliferation of adipocyte precursor cells, called preadipocytes, followed by the subsequent conversion of preadipocytes, or differentiation, into mature fat cells. In vitro studies using experimental and primary preadipocyte cell lines have uncovered the mechanisms that drive the adipogenic process, a tightly controlled sequence of events guided by the strict temporal regulation of multiple inhibitory and stimulatory signaling events involving regulators of cell-cycle functions and differentiation factors. This article reviews the current understanding of adipogenesis with emphasis on the various stages of adipocyte development; on key hormonal, nutritional, paracrine, and neuronal control signals; as well as on the components involved in cell-cell or cell-matrix interactions that are pivotal in regulating fat cell formation. Special consideration is given to clinical applications derived from adipogenesis research with impact on medical, surgical and cosmetic fields.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I'd also think that fat people have a lower surface-area to volume ratio, and would lose body heat less rapidly. That means they would need fewer calories for homeostasis... and a very large portion of one's calorie intake is expended in simply maintaining body temperature.

They lose heat less rapidly because they're well-insulated too. But, they're also using a lot of calories just to maintain things like blood flow through all that tissue. And, body cooling can also be an active process if they're too well insulated, pumping more blood into the cutaneous vessels (which now meet more resistance having to pass through all that fat compressing them) to cool the body core.

And, that doesn't even account for the extra body weight you have to move with every step you take. Try carrying even 20 lbs extra in a backpack while you do your next workout and you'll appreciate the extra energy it takes an obese person to do something like climb a flight of stairs. (This is getting more to the exercise issue too.) It's hard to get someone started exercising when they are very quickly fatigued due to carrying around this excess weight (not to mention due to insufficient cardiovascular functioning due to fat around the heart itself...not just IN the vessels, but literally surrounding the heart muscle itself).

 

[DaveC426913]

Fat bodies consume the addtional energy simply hauling their own weight around. They have bigger muscles, bigger organs, etc. and everything has to work harder.