The 100 by Jorge Cruise: Book Review

Posted on 02 Dec 2014 01:38

By Eric Troy, Ground Up Strength

### The 100: Count ONLY Sugar Calories and Lose Up to 18 Lbs. in 2 Weeks - Starts with a Lie, Ends Up Being Another Low Carb Diet

Jorge Cruise, in his book "The 100: Count ONLY Sugar Calories and Lose Up to 18 Lbs. in 2 Weeks", starts off his book with the following "Welcome, From the desk of Jorge Cruise (what's the rest of the book from?):

"Dear friend, get ready because I have some shocking news. Currently the US government suggests a Recommended Daily Allowance of 1,752 Sugar Calories or around 9 cups of sugar."

YEP, he said that! This is what we would normally call a LIE. There is no "recommended amount" of sugar and the idea that the government would recommend that you consume 9 cups of sugar a day is ludicrous. Yet, this book is a "New York Times Bestseller."

Now, foods contain carbohydrates, both complex and "simple sugar." He may be trying to lump all sugar into this claim, both added sugar or naturally occurring simple sugars in food. Even so, if the recommendations were based on a 2000 calorie diet, as has been done in the past, this would be a ridiculous suggestion. Nine cups of sugar is a huge amount of sugar! It would be downright difficult to achieve.

But we don't even need to counter the statement about the government, we can just do the math. If sugar is 4 calories per gram, then 1,752 calories would equal 438 grams of sugar. So, how many cups of sugar is 438 grams? Well, one cup of granulated sugar comes to about 200 grams in weight. Therefore, 438 grams should be about 2.2 cups of sugar. A far cry from nine! Do we often consume this many carbohydrates? Sure, and much more. But even if we ate a very sugary diet, where more than half of the carbohydrate calories came from simple sugars, it would still be difficult to eat the percentage of sugar he suggests and you really shouldn't need a best-selling diet book to tell you, in this case, that your diet is unbalanced.

The 100: Count ONLY Sugar Calories and Lose Up to 18 Lbs. in 2 Weeks
Claims that it will teach you to distinguish the calories that matter from
the ones that do not, and will show you why counting 100 Sugar Calories
promotes weight loss, helping you to lose up to 18 pounds in 2 weeks and
keep it off. Link for informational purposes only.

I guess it makes sense to figure out how many calories in an actual 9 cups of sugar and, again, we must assume granulated sugar. Nine cups of sugar equals about 1,800 grams of sugar. At 4 calories per gram, that is 7,200 calories. Maybe that is what the book was supposed to say, instead. Nah..

This fellow not only starts out with a lie about 'recommended sugar' but he fails to do the basic math required to show that his statement is impossible. With such a gross and ridiculous misstatement, why continue reading? Especially when said statement has an entire page devoted to it.

We know that it is becoming harder and harder to recognize charlatans, but it isn't that hard all of the time.

Not only does he lie about the RDI of sugar, and fail in basic math, he seriously mischaracterizes RDA's, or "Recommended Daily Allowances." First, he's missed the memo: The federal government, which is this case would be the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Institute of Medicine, no longer uses RDA's but instead has turned to DRI's, which stands for "Dietary Reference Intakes." However, as far back as 2002 the IOM decided that that the RDA for total carbohydrates, that's starches and sugars, should be 130 grams a day. Of course, most people consume more than this, and even perhaps more than this in sugars. Just to be clear, 130 grams comes to around 520 calories a day, not over 1,700.

However, the "federal government" does not recognize sugar, as opposed to carbohydrates, as an essential nutrient, therefore they do not set any "RDA." Specifically, the Food and Nutrition Board said that there was "insufficient evidence to set a daily intake of sugars or added sugars that individuals should aim for." In other words, the federal government does not recommend that you consume any certain amount of sugar.

They do suggest a maximum level of intake for added sugars (remember, naturally occurring sugars were already accounted for) at 25% or less of calories "to prevent the displacement of foods that are major sources of essential micronutrients." In other words, to avoid empty calories.

This is not a recommendation, although the sugar industry probably promoted it as such, and the sugar industry is no-doubt the kind of source from which the likes of Cruise get their information. He certainly couldn't have gotten it from the government. Such a fabrication could only have come from a disreputable source. Still, perhaps he just made it up entirely.

The World Health Organization, by the way, says added sugar should be 5 percent or less, down from their previous 10% figure.

So, what is the score, here? In a bestselling diet book that claims you can lose weight by ONLY COUNTING SUGAR CALORIES, author Jorge Cruise, begins the book by devoting an entire page to a shocking revelation that turns out to be a bald-faced lie, while failing to do basic math that would have revealed his mistake to him, and misrepresenting the federal government's nutrition recommendations. This is simple stuff, folks. There is no excuse, no reason, and no justification for such a vacuous statement.

The blurb for this book makes a claim that we are all familiar with, that the experts, for years, have been wrong about "calories in, calories out" and that this book reveals stunning new science. This new science is, in fact, based on nothing but hare-brained theory from a few fringe nutrition-nuts.

What do the actual diet recommendations come to? It is based on the "100" in the title. You are allowed 25 grams of carbohydrates a day, which, in the language of idiot diet book authors, are all "sugar calories" and since each of these grams equals 4 calories, it comes to 100. Where did 100 come from? He seems to have pulled it out of his ass, probably because it sounded better than 83.5. The actual meal plans pay little attention to this recommendation, and instead allow you to eat around 33 "sugar calories" a day. Hmmm…I guess "The 33" or "the 132" wouldn't have sounded good in a title, either. Despite all the sugar talk, it is just another iteration of a low carb diet.

Of course, Dr. Oz promoted this huxter! Many people who have reviewed the book are annoyed by a typical Dr. Oz bait and switch. When the author was featured on the Dr. Oz show, the two made recipes using almond, flax, and coconut flour. None of which is found in the book, but which caused consumers to purchase thinking it was a recipe book.

The book's cover claims that it is a diet "proven by science." This, in itself, should give anyone pause before purchasing. Add the review by Dr. Andrew Weil, a regular in the quack panoply, who calls it "Cutting edge nutritional science," and we've reached dumbass saturation.

Now, I did not bother trying to calculate the actual calories that the diet ends up recommending. Why? Because that would be making the assumption that the author has any evidence whatsoever that his diet "works" because of this magical idea of only counting sugar calories, and that, indeed, a calorie is not a calorie. I do not need to "prove" that this diet is actually a restricted calorie diet. If it results in weight loss, it probably is. It is up to the author to show evidence for his extraordinary claims, and there is none. At the end of the day, it does not matter what the calories are, because we have no evidence whatsoever that this "diet" results in weight loss, let alone 18 lbs in two weeks.

# Reference

United States. Food and Nutrition Board - National Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino AcidsDietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. By Various. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2002/2005. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf>.