Dropped 4 kg, everything tastes better, no energy drop at 4pm and the cravings disappeared within first two days. Friends report similar results.
This was also much easier than my previous attempts at "cutting down" sugar.
Now I know the secret sauce of weight loss, and feeling great at the same time, but the only thing that knocks me off this diet and lifestyle is stress. When under work related stress, I end up eating carbohydrate rich food which results in quick weight gain. I am in the process of figuring out a way to stay on LCHF because I long to going back to the feeling that I have experienced while on LCHF.
But it starts from milk, so there is lots of sugar it in.
I guess varying the preparation of the yogurt can still result in a wide range of sugar content.
The problematic sugar is refined fructose. That is the stuff cannot be properly processed by the body and causes all kinds of chaos for your metabolism.
Even naturally occurring fructose, such as in fruit, is ok. But once you concentrate it into crystallized sugar or HFCS, it becomes a slow acting poison.
what about glycemic index? Surely foods with high GI are demonstrably worse?
> We're talking about cutting out a food category
> and presumably replacing it with another.
> I don't know of any convincing evidence this
> results in weight loss. Open to information of
> course!
Atkins - probably the most famous. Tim Ferris - relatively recent. Both good starting points for some large (though in some cases you'll find some insufficiently formal) studies.
The 2014 US film 'Fed Up' goes into some good detail about why this particular food category is bad for you - including a lovely animated graphic about a half hour in.
The actual article (did you read it?) this story points to has a box on p24 that describes this too - the 'a calorie is not a calorie'. That box includes several links to some more scientific research on the subject.
The underlying problem is that the sentiment you've expressed - replacing one food category with another can't possibly be effective at reducing weight / risk of disease, improving well-being, etc - is one that the sugar industry is very happy with, and regrettably is very widely held.
To many people it's intuitive that all energy is equal in terms of what your body does with it. Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is the case, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.
Do some searches on things like 'evidence of weight loss with low-carbohydrate diets' maybe append 'high fat' for some interesting variants.
You'll find some good studies, plus an abundance of anecdotes (blogs basically :) of people who've maintained or increased their raw energy input, while reducing their weight, through dietary changes alone.
Soda if just one of things with sugar (and diet soda has none anyway).
Most food, from McDonalds burgers to Chinese has loads of sugar.
And of course, losing weight is mostly a matter of reducing caloric intake. If you compensated for the sugar in sodas with extra food, you'll stay the same weight.
Sadly, people can't take simple advice.
If it were as easy as you say, everyone would just do it. 36% of US adults are considered obese.
It's obviously a lot more complicated and harder than taking "simple" advice.
It likely is as easy as cutting sugar out, just like smokers should cut cigarettes out, it is just hard to do because of the additives qualities of the drugs.
And like cigarettes, cutting down isn't really as effective as cutting it out nearly entirely, because a little bit of an additive drugs primes you for more.
First, "common sense" dietary advise is that fats are bad. That's why you see foods marketed as low-fat. Because common sense dietary advice has been focused on the wrong thing (fat instead of sugar/carbs), most people's conception of "eating healthy" is wrong.
Second, the route to being financially healthy and stable is incredibly simple: spend significantly less that you make. Yet some how a huge percentage of people in the US spend beyond their means. Could it not also be the case with cutting sugar & carbs that even if people actually knew what they needed to do, they still would not do it?