Cutting sugar and flour: what the data and real experience show

Eating less sugar and flour: the answer to overweight?

What if the obesity epidemic were not a calorie problem but a hormone problem? The question, which has been circulating for decades in heterodox nutrition circles, has found a testing ground in a corner of the internet with thousands of human guinea pigs. For more than nine years, a group of people has shared their personal experiments with low-carb diets, intermittent fasting and fasted training. The result is a collective archive that mixes testimonials, scientific studies and a deep distrust of official recommendations.

The starting point is a personal experience: a 30-year-old man, 1.70 metres tall and 78 kilos, who, after removing sugar and refined flour from his diet and starting high-intensity interval running, lost nine kilos in a year and gained muscle. His testimony, echoed by dozens of people, points to a pattern: eating fat and protein until full, avoiding refined carbohydrates and not counting calories. "I'm never hungry and I have no food cravings," he writes. The community celebrates it as a revelation.

The hormonal model versus the calorie balance

The thesis underlying most of the posts is that overweight is not a matter of calories in minus calories out, but of insulin. When carbohydrates are consumed, especially sugars and refined flours, the pancreas secretes insulin, a hormone that tells the body to store fat and blocks its use as energy. By reducing carbohydrates, insulin falls and the body can access its reserves. This is the so-called carbohydrate model of obesity, popularised by Dr Jason Fung, whose blog is linked in the material.

Supporters of this view argue that official recommendations to restrict fats and base the diet on bread, pasta and potatoes lack solid scientific backing. "Official dietary guidelines have no solid scientific support," says the author of the original post. He adds: "The treatments proposed for obesity are tremendously ineffective." The collective experience seems to back him up: dozens of people report significant weight loss without hunger, on diets rich in olive oil, avocado, nuts, meat and fish.

Results that repeat: from 86 to 71 kilos in nine months

The testimonials vary but converge. A participant who is 1.80 metres tall and nearly 40 says he went from 86 kilos in January 2017 to 71 kilos in October of the same year, after giving up sugar and adopting a pseudo-paleo diet. "I feel better, I eat like an animal (little or no junk) and I'm more defined than when I was 20," he writes. Another reports losing 19 kilos in 20 weeks. And a third, who describes himself as always slim, gained up to 93 kilos during the pandemic and then lost it with a similar change of habits.

The community shares not only weights but also blood tests. One participant details his triglyceride trend: 193, 114, 108, 104, 75, 80. Another mentions that his ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) is at 1, a marker showing no inflammation. Their conclusion is that insulin resistance is the underlying problem and that conventional tests do not detect it until fasting glucose is already high.

Intermittent fasting and fasted training

Alongside cutting carbohydrates, intermittent fasting is presented as a key tool. The author of the original post runs on an empty stomach and has adopted an eating window of 16 hours without food. Others report longer fasts. The logic is that as insulin drops, the body enters ketosis and burns fat. "Intermittent dry fasting is basically what Jovenlandeses do during Ramadan," one participant comments, asking about its effects on people with oedema.

Fasted training, which initially raised suspicion ("it seemed dangerous to me"), has become routine practice. According to the accounts, combining high-intensity exercise with a low-carb diet speeds up fat loss and improves insulin sensitivity. The community insists it is not about eating less but eating differently: more fat and protein, less sugar and flour.

The food industry and public policy under suspicion

Scepticism towards health authorities is a constant. Critics argue that official dietary guidelines were built on weak epidemiological studies and conflicts of interest. "A study by the Spanish Paediatric Society on children's biscuit consumption, if paid for by Cuétara, will say biscuits are the very picture of health," one participant quips. The distrust extends to pharmaceutical companies and doctors, who are accused of being out of date.

On the political front, there is praise for Chile's initiative to label foods with warning seals for sugar, sodium and saturated fat. According to the accounts, the measure has changed shopping habits and forced the industry to reformulate products. "The seals are changing the way Chileans eat," it is claimed. The Chilean experience is presented as proof that regulation can work, although the community prefers individual solutions.

Cholesterol and lipids: an open debate

In the later stages of the discussion, the focus shifts to cholesterol. Several participants argue that high LDL is not a problem if triglycerides are low and HDL is high, a pattern they call "lean mass hyper-responder" (LMHR). On this view, the rise in LDL on ketogenic diets is a normal physiological response and does not imply cardiovascular risk. "Without inflammation there is no destruction of the endothelium, no plaque and no stroke," one participant states.

Others counter that LDL remains a risk factor and that the evidence is inconclusive. The discussion drifts towards the role of statins, triglycerides and vitamin C in arterial health. Nobody expects to settle the matter; the tone is more one of exploration than certainty.

Fibre, questioned

One of the most striking heresies in the thread is the criticism of fibre. Several participants claim that fibre is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. "It has been scientifically proven that the ideal amount of fibre in the diet is... zero," one writes. Others report that when they cut it, their digestive problems disappear and they go to the toilet less often but without discomfort. The idea, backed by some minority studies, clashes head-on with the conventional recommendation of 25-30 grams a day.

The fibre debate intertwines with that of vegetables. Some see them as mere filler, while others defend eating them for their micronutrients. The practical conclusion drawn is that vegetables should not be the base of the diet but a side dish.

A movement growing between disbelief and evidence

Over the years, the tone has evolved from initial bewilderment to greater confidence. At first, participants were surprised to lose weight while eating fat; now they take it for granted and discuss the finer points. The community has accumulated an archive of experiences, blood tests and scientific references that they consider a solid alternative to the official narrative. "This thread has allowed me to learn a new way of eating, well grounded in reliable references," one participant sums up.

There is no absolute consensus, however. Some warn against dogmatism and remind others that low-carb diets are not for everyone. "It's not universal, of course," one points out. The overall impression is that, for this group, cutting sugar and flour has been the key to losing weight and improving health, but the scientific evidence remains disputed.

In the end, the question remains open: is sugar the enemy, or simply the scapegoat for a more complex problem? The answer, like almost everything in nutrition, is probably not binary.