Is Sugar Really an Evil Villain?
Sugar.
Hands down one of the most controversial subjects out there regarding nutrition.
The root of countless illnesses is supposedly due to its easy 'addiction'.
"Sugar is bad."
"Vegetables are good."
"Carbohydrates are bad."
"Avocados are good."
Luckily for you and me, things aren't as black and white as that.
I have much to say about it, some of which may blow your mind.
So sit tight and read every word - because you're about to learn a thing or two.
Here goes.
So, is Sugar an Evil Villain?
First, let's start with the "sugar addiction" you or someone you know has.
The reason why I put "sugar addiction" in quotation marks is that 99% of people who claim they are or have been addicted to sugar - aren't actually addicted to sugar.
"WTF, LEO? HOW CAN YOU TELL ME? I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!? I CERTAINLY WAS!!!"
Let me explain, and let's rewind a bit for you.
Many people combine the words 'sugar' and 'addiction' for various reasons.
One popular reason is a study done a few years ago on mice. The results showed that by the end of the study - the mice would more often opt for water sweetened with sucrose over cocaine.
This was done on mice.
So, what about humans? I can confirm that its also been studied extensively on humans to see if eating pure sugar can be on par with a legitimate addiction, e.g., drugs - the literature shows that it isn't.
It's important to highlight that the doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, cakes and chocolate you can't stop eating are a combination of sugar, fats and salt.
Surely if 'sugar' was addictive, wouldn't it make more economic sense for you to buy pure sugar and only eat it? Then you'd be able to eat it by the spoonful straight from a bag or bowl and into your mouth, satisfying your addiction.
Sounds weird? I thought so.
Suppose you've never done that before, or you have, and it wasn't enjoyable, or even the thought of it was strange to you. In that case, you're not actually addicted to sugar - because pure sugar on its own isn't that tasty.
You're more 'addicted' to the combination of sugar, fat and salt together - because they make highly processed and hyper-palatable foods.
Note how I'm still using 'addiction' in quotation marks because eating something very often isn't the same as a legitimate addiction.
Not my words, by the way; I'm just reporting what the literature says.
"OK, I see what you mean, Leo, but sugar is still bad for you and can cause many diseases and issues within your body."
Yes, that is true, I agree - but only when eaten in abundance.
Something potentially negatively affecting your health when consumed in enormous amounts is not the same as something negatively affecting your health when eaten in smaller quantities as part of a well-balanced diet.
Although the vast amounts of misinformation are usually blown way out of proportion and never provided with further context.
For example, Dr Tro (I HATE name-dropping other people, but I want you to have a real-life example) says, 'eating sugar causes diseases’, then references the study "fructose stimulated de novo lipogenesis is promoted by inflammation".
Which is OK - nothing wrong with that, right? After all, outrageous claims like that should be backed with studies.
But here's the catch - which he doesn't mention anywhere - this study was done on mice. The adverse health effects were only reported once the mice ate 60% of daily calories from fructose and drank unlimited amounts of a 30% fructose solution.
This is a lot.
This is also a prime example of cherry-picking to fit an agenda.
Is it shocking that adverse health effects were reported within the study? Of course not.
Again, there will always be drawbacks if you abuse anything in massive amounts.
This is Also a Solid Example as to Why it's Super Important to;
Not just accept that someone knows what they are speaking about. Make sure that they're a legitimate source of good quality information.
For example, you'd be surprised how many 'Doctors' on Instagram spread vast misinformation. Sometimes they're the most guilty - because being a doctor doesn't necessarily make you a nutrition expert.
You must ensure you constantly question everything. That includes advice from myself, too.
Not only read the abstract of scientific studies but look deeper, e.g. who or what the study was done on, for how long, the conditions of each group, the backgrounds of the individuals who took part etc.
An easy example of this would be studies that report that meat eating is often correlated with more negative health effects when compared to a vegan or vegetarian diet.
However, abstracts don't also usually highlight that most vegans or vegetarians are much more health aware and typically follow healthier habits than your average meat eater.
Therefore, correlation doesn't equal causation, so you mustn't take everything at face value.
You must question data that are presented on a deeper level.
This reminds me of when an independent scientific journal reviewed a popular Netflix "nutrition" documentary, 'What the Health' - and found that What the Health had inaccurately cited 96% of the scientific references they'd included throughout.
Realise that you should be concerned if you're a mouse with about 70% of its calories from pure fructose.
Realise that you should not be worried if you're a human being who sometimes has some fructose as part of a well-balanced diet, especially if you're in a calorie deficit.
This brings me to my next point: I don't think it's a good idea to lose weight by mostly consuming sugar because sugar isn't filling. Some people find it tough to limit themselves when it comes to this.
But if you're in a calorie deficit whilst getting adequate protein and simultaneously enjoying some highly palatable foods - is there evidence that this will lead to adverse health effects compared to other carbohydrates? The answer is no.
This is also why I never tell Kairos Online members to get fixated on the exclusion or inclusion of sugar, regardless of their goal. In fact, I leave 0 foods off-limits because as long as they hit their calorie and protein target for the day, anything is allowed - which doesn't worry me.
"OMG LEO, ARE YOU MAD!?!?!"
Let me explain.
Two Reasons.
First, some people become too obsessed with 'having' to avoid it, which potentially causes tons of stress (after all, sugar is in many tasty foods). This then almost certainly results in a worse relationship with not only sugar but food in general.
Telling someone to avoid something only ends up making them want it more. If I told you not to think of a pink elephant, you would think of a pink elephant.
Want to worsen someone's relationship with food? Instruct them to avoid something they love eating.
Maybe they can avoid it for one to four weeks maximum. Still, once that period is over and the floodgates open - best believe that that person will likely binge on tons of whatever was previously 'banned'.
What a surprise, right? It's almost as if stone-cold banning it isn't always the answer.
Because becoming a healthier version of yourself also means realising that you can enjoy your favourite foods as part of a balanced diet and still make fantastic progress.
In addition to the first point, sugar intake will never be worryingly high when someone is in a sustainable calorie deficit.
Why is this? Because most people quickly notice that if their calorie deficit doesn't consist of high protein, fruit and veg, they will be hungry often.
Ensuring the feeling of hunger is minimised automatically forces the person to make smarter food choices. As a by-product, they take in less sugar, and likely A LOT less than before they started the calorie deficit.
The most interesting part? I never once told them to avoid anything containing sugar because the reduction in sugar intake happens automatically - without gaining a negative relationship with it.
What is Something Else You May Find Fascinating?
People who say that sugar is an evil villain, bad for your gut health and insulin levels, the root cause of all illnesses, and something you must avoid for weight loss - don't realise the most ironic part.
What's That?
If someone struggles with their weight and then loses a bunch after chronically being in a calorie deficit, their gut health, insulin levels, and vulnerability to illnesses, all improve anyway.
Because that's what happens when you go from obese to overweight or overweight to a healthy range.
Best Part?
It's all done whilst giving them space to enjoy their favourite foods.
Sounds like sustainability to me.
But before I finish, I will leave you with one more thing; just because nothing is ever off-limits when it comes to what you eat and drink, it doesn't mean there are no limits.
Difference.
In the meantime, check out my podcast by clicking here whenever you go on your next walk.
Anyway, that's me done now - and funnily enough, I'm going to go and enjoy some fantastic cookies that Milka bought out.
They taste so damn good.
Speak soon,
Leo
P.S. If you enjoyed reading this article and/or know someone who could do with reading it, then please consider sharing it.
