A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
tigersword wrote: »
The first link is a rat study. Rats and humans don't process fat and carbs in the same way at all, so it doesn't do anything to support what you're saying. De novo lipogenesis is very common in rats. It's rather rare in humans.tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »From a nutrition aspect, I try to limit my intake of added sugars from processed foods and such. I don't count sugars from fruits and other natural sources. I watched a really interesting documentary yeaterday though called Fed Up. According to that, sugar calories (all sugars, natural or processed) aren't treated by your body the same way and are more readily stored as fat instead of used as energy. It is worth watching if you would like to learn more about sugar in your diet.
No. The sugars are treated exactly the same way, as they are the exact same molecules. The human digestive system doesn't recognize "Apple" or "Twinkie." It recognizes glucose and fructose and digests them accordingly.
Also, unless you're eating kilograms of sugar, it won't be stored as fat. Sugar is almost never stored as fat, as the body readily uses it as its main energy source. It won't remain in the body long enough to be converted to fat, unless, like I said, you're eating about a 1000 grams in a sitting. That would be the equivalent of 25 cans of Coke in one sitting, for perspective.
The body is actually quite good at storing glucose as fat, except in diabetics. Carbohydrates are turned into glucose by the body, quickly for simple sugars, more slowly for complex carbohydrates and sugars that are eaten with fiber, fat, or protein. Sustained high levels of glucose in the blood causes damage to nerves and the vascular system, leading to blindness and necrosis. Fortunately the body uses insulin to prevent glucose from causing damage. Insulin causes the liver and muscles to take up glucose and store it. You can store about 100g of glucose in the liver and 500g glucose (in the form of glycogen) in the muscles. Once your immediate need for glucose is met (i.e. your brain will use 120g/day), and the storage room inside your muscles and liver is full, insulin causes any excess glucose to be stored in fat cells. You do not need to eat kilos of sugar in one sitting to gain fat from it. Even if you come to a meal competely starved, with your muscles and liver absolutely empty of glycogen, you will have excess glucose after 600 grams. And, of course, your body would never let you have absolutely no glucose, as it is necessary for your brain to keep running. When the body is starved of carbohydrate, it begins to make protein into glucose, breaking down muscle if it has no other source. Fat can also be made into glucose, but it is a slow process. The body can make fat out of any excess calories that it can digest (i.e. fat, protein, and carbohydrates, excluding insoluable fiber).
It really isn't that good. While I admit I may have exaggerated the number slightly, let's go ahead and use 600 grams of storage, plus the 130 grams the brain uses. That's still 730 grams. That's still almost 3000 calories worth of sugar before it gets converted to fat.
Over 85% of the fat in adipose tissue is made of fatty acids. Sugar is very rarely stored, because it's used immediately.
Yes, the sugar is turned by the liver into fatty acids by the body so it can be stored in fat cells. And, as you acknowledged above, that happens continuously over the day. Sugar, in some ways, is more likely to be stored as fat, as it has no other use in the body other than stored and used energy. Fat and protein both are used to make hormones, in the nervous system, to repair and build body tissues, in the skin, etc. (have a use beyond their caloric content).
There is only a net gain of fat when the body is given more calories than daily energy expenditure, however, as we live in a society with over 50% of people being overweight or obese, this is not a rare event. Having one`s liver and muscles completely empty at the beginning of a meal is extremely rare, however, unless carbs are restricted. Keep in mind the 130 g of carbs the brain uses is over the course of a day. For the 1/2 hour of a meal, only 5-6g carbs would be needed.
This is how carbs become net fat. If someone had their body full of stored carbs at breakfast, then ate a 500 calorie lunch, with a tdee of 2400 calories, they would have the room to store 400 calories (100 calories burned/hour at normal activity at this TDEE). So, assuming they ate 58% carbs (72g), 30% fat (17g) and 22% protein (15g - numbers slightly off due to rounding), the person would be gaining net fat in from the carbohydrate and some of the fat, with the remaing fat and all protein going to create and maintain body systems (non-energy requirements). Some of the carbs would be sugar, so sugar made fat in this example, perhaps as little as the 10 grams in a glass of juice. Sugar is turned into net fat regularly.
I don't think you understand what the term "net" means. Also, sugar is burned instantly for energy, then leftovers are used to refill glycogen stores, then if any are left over at that point, it's converted to glycerol. However, as we've established, 730 grams of glucose are required for brain use and glycogen storage (not counting the glucose used by the rest of the body, of which there are various organs that are glucose exclusive for energy.) The average American eats around 200-300 grams of carbs per day. So even if glycogen is only half depleted during the day, it's not being refilled. So there isn't any left over glucose to be converted to glycerol, because it's all used up before it gets to that step. Dietary fat, on the other hand, gets shuttled right to adipose tissue for storage after being eaten, then the endocrine system pulls what it needs from adipose storage.
http://www.jlr.org/content/11/2/131.full.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis
Excess glucose is turned into fat
You would only need to replenish a full 730 g of glucose if you use it. If the muscles and liver are already full of glucose, they would not take any more in. Typically, up to 60% of calories burned at rest, 30% of calories burned at light activity, and 60% calories at intense activity are fat. So, in an oversimplified example, a person at 2400 tdee who is not active burns 240 g (960 calories) glucose a day. Should they eat 300 g carbs (ignoring fiber to make this simpler), they would store 240 calories, or 27 grams of fat. This fat may be burned because total energy in is less then energy out, or it may be retained (net fat gain). Excess glucose must be stored, or it causes the kind of damage seen in diabetics. Excess carbohydrate is turned into fat all through the day in the body.
Also, high intensity activity burns far more CHO than fat, it's what glycogen is for, so i have no idea where you got your numbers from, because they aren't correct. It's also pretty easy to twist numbers around to make a point when you just randomly make them up. Fat and glucose metabolism are a 24/7 constant, you're burning glucose for fuel every second of every day. Plus you're ignoring the very basic fact that glycogen storage can increase as necessary. Your attempt to "oversimplify" your example completely invalidates it.
Has it occurred to you that when several people with science and research based backgrounds all tell you that carbs are very rarely stored as fat, that maybe your assumption is incorrect?
http://www.e-spenjournal.org/article/S1751-4991(11)00006-0/fulltext
Information on % of calories from fat at different levels of activity.
"The average resting RQ of 0.82 thus reflects that the human body derives more than half of its energy from fatty acids and most of the rest from glucose (Table 1)
" While proteins and CHOs elicit strong auto-regulatory adjustments in their oxidation in response to changes in intake, fat is at the bottom of an oxidative hierarchy that determines fuel selection.47 This response is governed by a relatively small storage capacity of protein and CHO, a need to maintain glucose homeostasis within tight limits, and infinite body capacity for fat storage.47"
Sorry, typo. Low intensity exercise burns most of the calories from fat. Medium intensity exercise is about 50-50, and high intensity exercise burns just over 2/3 of calories from carbohydrate, but longer duration exercise tends to burn a higher percentage of fat once carbohydrate stores are exhausted.
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Fat storage increased in response to fructose. DNL in humans.
Glycogen storage increases results from things like carb-loading in elite athelets, a rare situation. Any info you have on how much storage can be increased would be appreciated.
My example was based on the assumption that the calories were ingested, digested, and stored/used over a 24 hour period.
If you don't like my numbers, please post the links to your studies.
I'm not aware of the science and research background of any posters. I simply have healthy scepticism when presented with information that is inconsistent with what is commonly known to be true.
So if you think you know it, it's "commonly known to be true," but if a majority of people discussing with you tell you that you're incorrect, and they all tell you the same thing, that deserves skepticism.
I'm honestly convinced you're trolling at this point, nobody can honestly be that willfully ignorant.-3 -
This content has been removed.
-
tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
body can make fat out of any excess calories that it can digest (i.e. fat, protein, and carbohydrates, excluding insoluable fiber).
tissue is made of fatty acids. Sugar is very rarely stored, because it's used immediately.
regularly.
rage.
http://www.jlr.org/content/11/2/131.full.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis
Excess glucose is turned into fat
y rarely stored as fat, that maybe your assumption is incorrect?
h background of any posters. I simply have healthy scepticism when presented with information that is inconsistent with what is commonly known to be true.
So if you think you know it, it's "commonly known to be true," but if a majority of people discussing with you tell you that you're incorrect, and they all tell you the same thing, that deserves skepticism.
I'm honestly convinced you're trolling at this point, nobody can honestly be that willfully ignorant.
I know the more mature path is to ignore outrageous statements, like the one you made about eating kilograms of sugar. But I can't seem to help myself...
As much as I like being called willfully ignorant...You made a claim that sugar is only turned into fat when consumed in kilogram amounts, a remark you later admitted was hyperbole. I countered and presented science-based links showing that human beings can indeed turn any calories we are capable of digesting into fat (carbohydrate, excluding soluble fiber, protein, and fat). Even when excess sugar consumption (and the example you gave was excessive, and not an example of a calorie deficit for most) does not go directly to fat, it encourages the body to store more fat, and thus leads to fat gain. The "common knowledge" that the body stores excess sugar as fat is a simplification, but it is a common message:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/408673-does-sugar-turn-into-fat/
"High Blood Sugar Leads to High Body Fat
According to the National Council on Strength and Fitness, the two most common sources of carbohydrates in the American diet are high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose. These refined sugars, which are added to many foods, lack the vitamins, minerals, proteins and fiber found in complex carbohydrates. These "empty calories" can cause blood sugar levels to spike, which in turn causes insulin levels to rise. Insulin is a hormone released by the body that helps regulate blood sugar levels. If sugar is not quickly used for energy, insulin removes it from the blood, and it is then converted into triglycerides in the liver. These triglycerides can then be stored as body fat."
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080731/fructose-may-make-you-fatter
"They found that lipogenesis -- the process by which sugars are turned to body fat -- increased significantly when the breakfast drinks contained fructose.
In addition, the study suggested that when fructose is eaten with fat or before fat is consumed, the fat is more likely to be stored rather than burned, Parks says."
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa14.htm
"Once the fructose (fruit sugar) enters the liver and liver glycogen is already full, then it cannot be used by the muscles for glycogen or energy production.
It is converted to fat and released back into the bloodstream to be stored as adipose tissue. "
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/27/what-you-need-to-know-about-sugar/
"Myth 2. Fructose is turned into glucose in the body.
Maybe. If you’re energy depleted (i.e. an elite athlete), fructose can be converted to glycogen (liver starch) as a storehouse for ready energy, which can then be fished out of your liver if your body needs glucose in the future (for more exercise or if you’re starving). But most of us aren’t energy depleted, so fructose gets turned into liver fat, driving insulin resistance."
That the body turns excess sugar into fat is the message that is given out by pretty much any "plain speech" source out there.
If my ignorance (backed up by the studies I've found) bothers you, please point me to current research that says that sugar consumed in excess rarely becomes body fat. (quotes have been shortened so reply could be posted.0 -
We are all going to die!!!!!!!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Livestrong and bodybuilding.com. Such wonderful sources...
I love how this poster is stuck on trying to "disprove" a mostly hyperbolic exaggeration, that was already admitted to be an exaggeration. Contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, other than showing more and more ignorance of the actual topic at hand.
Maybe next I can get this poster to go on a tirade explaining to me how everyone will die if I say people should drink "tons of water" every day.-3 -
JesslanRose wrote: »I'm a total newbie when it comes to counting calories. I've never done it before and still have a lot to learn so please excuse me if this is a stupid question.
I understand that a calorie deficit is what is behind losing the weight. But where does sugar fit in? I try to be mindful of my sugar count, but it's sometimes over by a couple numbers or if I'm dealing with a lot of stress my calories could be under, but the sugar is way over. How does this affect my weight loss?
You are correct, the calorie deficit is required to lose weight. Nothing else is needed.
Unless you have a medical condition and your doctor has told you to give up sugar, or you don't like sugar, or you simply want to limit sugar intake for personal reasons, there is no reason to give it up because it does not affect weight loss one way or the other.
I've lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining for about a year now, and I eat sugar (you should have seen my breakfast today--Bob's old fashioned oatmeal with banana and raspberries).
) 0 -
tigersword wrote: »Livestrong and bodybuilding.com. Such wonderful sources...
I love how this poster is stuck on trying to "disprove" a mostly hyperbolic exaggeration, that was already admitted to be an exaggeration. Contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, other than showing more and more ignorance of the actual topic at hand.
Maybe next I can get this poster to go on a tirade explaining to me how everyone will die if I say people should drink "tons of water" every day.
I was giving examples like Time magazine to show that plain speak sources claim that sugar turns into fat - i.e. common knowledge. If you want science, please read:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
In the study "Subjects then began an 8-week outpatient intervention and consumed either fructose- (n = 17) or glucose-sweetened (n = 15) beverages at 25% of energy requirements with self-selected ad libitum diets. The subjects returned to the CCRC after 2 outpatient weeks for 2 days and then again for the final 2 weeks of the intervention for inpatient metabolic studies, during which the glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages were consumed as part of an energy-balanced diet."
"Increased DNL contributed to the increases of postprandial TG during fructose consumption. Fractional hepatic DNL was unchanged during glucose consumption, both in the fasting (8.8% ± 1.8% vs. 9.5% ± 1.8%; P = 0.47) and postprandial states (13.4% ± 2.8% vs. 14.2% ± 1.7%; P = 0.31). Fasting DNL was unaffected during fructose consumption (9.9% ± 1.3% vs. 8.3% ± 0.9%; P = 0.25), but postprandial DNL was significantly increased (11.4% ± 1.3% vs. 16.9% ± 1.4%; P = 0.021) (Table 4)."
"We have demonstrated that a mechanism by which fructose induces postprandial hypertriglyceridemia is through increased hepatic DNL. It has long been established that in contrast to the metabolism of glucose, fructose metabolism is independent of phosphofructose kinase regulation; thus, its uptake by the liver and its metabolism to DNL substrate is not limited by energy status (cytosolic ATP and citrate levels) (23). In addition, fructose may activate sterol receptor element–binding protein-1c independently of insulin, which activates genes involved in DNL (24, 25). However, demonstrations that sustained fructose consumption increases DNL in humans are limited to an abstract (26) and an overfeeding study (800–1000 kcal/d fructose in excess of energy requirement) (27). This is the first study, to our knowledge, to demonstrate that prolonged fructose consumption but not glucose consumption increases hepatic fractional DNL in humans when measured during energy-balanced feeding. "
DNL increased with fructose (sugar) consumption. Fructose given in a sugary drink that made up 25% of calories at a maintenance (energy balanced) diet. So, at 2000 calories/day maintenence, that would be 500 calories, or 125 g of fructose, about 5 1/2 cans of Dr. Pepper (45% of the sugar in the HFCS used in pop is actually glucose). Sugar is turned into fat, and insane amounts of sugar are not needed for this to happen, nor does it appear to be a rare circumstance only observed in obscure african tribes. (my boyfriend drinks Pepsi at least 5-6 times a day...I worry about him
)
The science is behind me. Common knowledge is behind me. Sugar can absolutely be stored as fat, and encourage the storage of fat, and, based on the fact that more than half of the people in my country are overweight and obese, this does happen regularly. Not in people in a calorie deficit, but it can happen.
I'd like to give a shout out to yarwell, who disagreed and gave evidence while keeping it respectful (certainly more respectful than I did). (*)
I appreciate the information that you shared with me, and respect your right to have a different opinion. 0 -
Kyta32, you said "The science is behind me. Common knowledge is behind me. Sugar can absolutely be stored as fat, and encourage the storage of fat, and, based on the fact that more than half of the people in my country are overweight and obese, this does happen regularly. Not in people in a calorie deficit, but it can happen."
Well Kyta, the Australian Government is also behind you as well. This is one of the ads that is currently screening across Australia at the moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pThTr83UWa8 0 -
If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.0
-
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar is sugar and our body does not differentiate between cane sugar or fruit sugar. In fact, many foods that say no added sugar are sweetened with fruit, so they really do have sugar.
What kind of "unhealthy" foods are you referring to?0 -
Kyta32, you said "The science is behind me. Common knowledge is behind me. Sugar can absolutely be stored as fat, and encourage the storage of fat, and, based on the fact that more than half of the people in my country are overweight and obese, this does happen regularly. Not in people in a calorie deficit, but it can happen."
Well Kyta, the Australian Government is also behind you as well. This is one of the ads that is currently screening across Australia at the moment.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pThTr83UWa8
leena what's the gist of the add ? I haven't seen it yet.
0 -
I can't speak for blueButterfly but I think most of us are talking about excess and added sugar. Even sugar from fruits can be eaten in excess e.g. fresh fruit juices.0
-
Christine here is link to the Australian Government's Live Lighter Campaign.
http://livelighter.com.au/about/
Have to go to work so sorry about the rushed response.
Basically it is a public education campaign, released by the Minister for Health, Hon David Davis, in August 2014 and runs until June 2015. It graphically portrays the damage unhealthy weight, poor diet and physical inactivity can cause to internal organs.
It aims to educate people about the risks associated with being overweight or obese and helps them make simple, lasting changes to their lifestyles.0 -
Christine here is link to the Australian Government's Live Lighter Campaign.
http://livelighter.com.au/about/
Have to go to work so sorry about the rushed response.
Basically it is a public education campaign, released by the Minister for Health, Hon David Davis, in August 2014 and runs until June 2015. It graphically portrays the damage unhealthy weight, poor diet and physical inactivity can cause to internal organs.
It aims to educate people about the risks associated with being overweight or obese and helps them make simple, lasting changes to their lifestyles.
I mean this sincerely-what does this have to do with sugar? Weight gain has nothing to do with sugar consumption and everything to do with overall excess calories, which can come from any food.
0 -
Tell that to the Australian Government and the Minister for Health. They are definitely targeting sugary drinks in this campaign amongst other things.
I personally believe weight gain has a lot to do with excess sugar.
http://livelighter.com.au/tools-and-resources/advertisements0 -
Tell that to the Australian Government and the Minister for Health. They are definitely targeting sugary drinks in this campaign amongst other things.
I personally believe weight gain has a lot to do with excess sugar.
Certainly, if you are eating a surplus of calories that is all sugar, then eating too much sugar would be the culprit to weight gain, but most people don't eat a diet that is all sugar.
I used to think sugar led to weight gain too, until I gained weight on a "sugar free" diet. Why? Because I was eating too much overall food. Now, I have sugar in my diet. I lost 44 pounds eating sugar, and have been maintaining for a year eating sugar.
Why aren't I gaining weight eating sugar, which some might define as excess?
Because I eat around the same amount of calories I burn.
What, in your perception, is excess sugar?
0 -
Tell that to the Australian Government and the Minister for Health. They are definitely targeting sugary drinks in this campaign amongst other things.
I personally believe weight gain has a lot to do with excess sugar.
http://livelighter.com.au/tools-and-resources/advertisements
Went to the about sugary drinks section here: http://livelighter.com.au/the-facts/about-sugary-drinks
And it says that sugary drinks can lead to weight gain if a can is consumed in addition to your daily needs without increasing exercise.
They could say the same thing about a potato.
0 -
Tell that to the Australian Government and the Minister for Health. They are definitely targeting sugary drinks in this campaign amongst other things.
I personally believe weight gain has a lot to do with excess sugar.
http://livelighter.com.au/tools-and-resources/advertisements
Yes because the government is never wrong or misguiding the public.. do we need to discuss the low fat diet craze in the 90's which was backed by multiple countries.
Also, you can believe what you want but all the most credible scientists in the field suggest calories in vs out is what matters for weight loss, gain or maintenance.0 -
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar is sugar and our body does not differentiate between cane sugar or fruit sugar. In fact, many foods that say no added sugar are sweetened with fruit, so they really do have sugar.
What kind of "unhealthy" foods are you referring to?
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators! 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar is sugar and our body does not differentiate between cane sugar or fruit sugar. In fact, many foods that say no added sugar are sweetened with fruit, so they really do have sugar.
What kind of "unhealthy" foods are you referring to?
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Awesome post Kyta. Makes total sense.0
-
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
0 -
In short, no. Sugar will not affect weight loss as long as total calories are held in check. HOWEVER, no answer is totally that short. The downside of too much sugar (particularly processed sugar) is that you are taking in "empty calories"... That means that they are calories that you are taking in without a corresponding quality nutritional benefit. That means if your sugar intake is way too high, then you are either taking in too many calories to achieve the nutritional values your body needs to function properly or you will keep your calories in check but not get all the nutrients that you really need. Over time, this deficit of needed nutrients will lead to an increasing appetite as the body craves the missing nutrients. Personally, I don't worry too much about sugar intake but do try to achieve a balanced diet within the parameters of my caloric needs.
0 -
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar is sugar and our body does not differentiate between cane sugar or fruit sugar. In fact, many foods that say no added sugar are sweetened with fruit, so they really do have sugar.
What kind of "unhealthy" foods are you referring to?
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
Thank you for this!-1 -
Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions