Posted on 08/11/2010 7:18:24 AM PDT by decimon
New research from Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, shows that sugary drinks, consumed in moderate quantities, do not promote weight gain, carbohydrate craving or adverse mood effects in overweight women when they do not know what they are drinking.
The study, 'Effects of sucrose drinks on macronutrient intake, body weight, and mood state in overweight women over 4 weeks', which was conducted by Marie Reid, Richard Hammersley and colleagues set out to determine the long-term effects of adding a sucrose drink to the diet of overweight women (BMI 25-30, aged 20 - 55), on dietary intake and mood. The results show that overweight women do not suffer adverse effects, such as weight gain or mood fluctuation, if they do not know whether or not they are drinking a sugary or artificially sweetened drink. Instead women took in fewer calories elsewhere in the diet, to balance the calories in the drinks.
In a single-blind, between-subjects design, soft drinks (4 x 25cl per day; 1800 kJ sucrose sweetened versus 67 kJ aspartame sweetened) were added to the diet of overweight women (n = 53, BMI 25 – 30, age 20 – 55) for 4 weeks. Participants were split into two groups and at the beginning of each week subjects took away 28 bottles of an unidentified drink for that week (4 per day). One group received sucrose (n = 24), the other aspartame (n = 29).
Subjects were instructed to consume the specified amount (25cl) each day at specified times (11:00, 14:00, 18:00, 20:00) and to rate their mood directly after the drink in their 7 day diary. Throughout the 5 week study (week 0 baseline, weeks 1 – 4 experimental), participants were also instructed to eat, drink and exercise as usual. At screening and each subsequent week thereafter, subjects' food diaries were checked and biometric data were obtained.
Mean daily energy intake at baseline (week 0) was 9126.36 kJ (SD 306.28), so the added drinks comprised some 20% of daily energy intake (1,800 kJ). Throughout the study, it was found that the mean increase in energy intake of those taking sucrose drinks between baseline week and week 1 was only 0.5 MJ, and by week 4 participants were consuming no more energy than at baseline. Across both groups it was found that some women in both groups lost, or gained weight, but it was found that there was no consistent trend for sucrose to influence this.
These findings suggest that because it is widely believed that sugary drinks are bad and part of an unhealthy diet, people then go on to behave accordingly. The primary causes of any negative effects of sugar on food choices and mood, may be psychological, and Prof Marie Reid, Professor of Applied Psychology at Queen Margaret University concludes: "Widespread publicity about the supposed harmful effects of sugar may make such effects more likely, as believing sugar to be harmful may encourage negative emotions after eating sugary food and lead to the abstinence violation effect. In other words, knowing that you're drinking sugary drinks, while believing that they're harmful, might result in the derailing of a generally healthy low-fat diet".
"Sugar in moderation plays a neutral role in the balanced diet, but an emotionally charged role in the psychology of food choice," she added.
The new research is published in the August issue of the journal Appetite, and replicates a previous study conducted by Reid in 2007, with normal weight women. The results substantiate those of the earlier study and show that women reduced their voluntary energy intake when the sucrose drinks were added to the diet. By the final week of the study, women had reduced their total energy intake back to baseline levels.
###
“The trouble with “low-fat” versions of things is that they almost always pile on more salt to address the lack of flavor. As a result I make a lot of my own stuff now, such as mayonnaise, salad dressing, etc.”
Or they fill it with HCFS (corn syrup) to sweeten it.
Fat is what gives food flavor. Say “no fat” in front of any self-respecting chef, and he’ll curse at you and throw pots and pans at you.
But, in the minds of too many people, dietary fat = body fat, period, without understanding that moderate amounts of fat are okay, as long as you are eating a healthy diet, and get exercise.
People who eat low fat have a very unappetizing, unsatisfactory eating regime, which is no surprise, as lot of them tend to be the grim, tight lipped liberal types.
PULEEZE... Who doesn’t know if they are drinking real or artificially sweetened drinks? I can tell if there is one grain of that artificial crap in a gallon... (hyperbole off)
Salt & sugar. Look at the label comparing mayo to fat-free mayo, and there's a LOT more carbs in the fat-free mayo. That increase in carbs come directly from an increase in sugar.
That is why I make my own with ingredients I control: egg yolks, olive oil, dry mustard, wine vinegar, very little cayenne, very little salt. No sugar.
A healthy diet = a low fat diet. Of course that’s not a no-fat diet, that would be impossible and unhealthy. We need to consume a regular amount of fat, but the average American ends up consuming several times what they need. This is why we are obese. It’s not because of “empty calories” or “sugary drinks”. Nor does all this fat come from eating gourmet food from “self respecting chefs”; it comes from eating crappy, cheap food that’s more than likely been deep fried in oil.
Why? Do you think the calorie content per gram is different between HFCS and sucrose?
This study was done in Britain. They don't use much HFCS in their foods and beverages. That's probably why they didn't address HFCS. Not that it matters anyway.
No, I don't think that at all. I do think that High Fructose Corn Syrup is a different compound than is Sucrose, and therefore a test based on one may not produce results that can be applicable to the other.
Not that it matters anyway.
It matters to me. I work for a pharmaceutical company, and the FDA would never let us extrapolate data from one active ingredient to another in a filing, for very good reason.
The chemistry of HFCS is no different than the chemistry of hydrolyzed sucrose. Sucrose is easily and quickly hydrolyzed in your gut prior to absorption. At this point, there is no difference between the glucose and fructose in HFCS and the glucose and fructose in sucrose.
It makes perfect sense why a study undertaken in Britain, where they use sucrose instead of HFCS, would use sucrose instead of HFCS.
Hunt’s Ketchup uses sugar, not corn syrup. Tastes more tomatoey, too. My favorite.
That's very nice reasoning... but reasoning isn't the same as doing a study. You do studies to discover what you hadn't thought of.
Huh? You need a study to understand how sucrose and HFCS are metabolized? You don’t need a study, just a freshman class in biology or nutrition.
I can tell that you're not really obtuse, so please stop pretending. We know what the theory says. We know what our mental model predicts. We do not know that the body's reaction to HFCS vs. sucrose is identical until the experiment has been performed. Are the concentrations of HFCS and of sucrose in the sodas the same? Does the blood sugar spike at the same rate? Are there any other differences in sugar sodas vs. HFCS sodas that we haven't thought of or accounted for? You don't know until you've done the study. Period.
Try using that "...all you need is a freshman class in biology or nutrition" line in an FDA audit sometime. Auditors love it when you show them how smart you are.
The GI of HFCS and sucrose fall into the same range (55~60). There is no significant difference in their hunger or satiety ratings. There is no significant difference in short-term energy intakes.
Creating doubt - when a preponderance of the evidence says otherwise - may be a proven method for obtaining grant money but it serves no real purpose other than wasting money and confusing people. Continuing to feed the beast is important to some people. And so it continues.....
There you go again asking those pesky questions.
I would expect that to be the total for the 4 x 8.5 ounces taken daily.
That makes more sense. Later on it says the daily intake is 1800 kJ, which would be the 430 Calories I had thought was for each drink instead of all four.
sugary drinks, consumed in moderate quantities, do not promote weight gain, carbohydrate craving or adverse mood effects in overweight women when they do not know what they are drinkingOf course, the study was carried out by overweight women scientists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.