We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is all sugars the same?
Replies
-
KittensMaster wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
I'm sorry but anyone saying "A calorie is not a calorie" can go throw whatever their credentials were into the trashbin that is a trashbin.
Food has many attributes
Seeing a calorie as a stand alone entity in the way your body interacts with food is incomplete.
So in the big picture, a calorie is not just a calorie any more than a relevant description of your car would be just the color.
But a red car is never a blue car, always a red car. Other things can be different but that doesn't change its color, just like any other attributes a food has doesn't change the amount of calories it contains, nor does it change the energy a calorie can give, and besides any differences in available energy or expenditure due to different digestion are miniscule.0 -
KittensMaster wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
I'm sorry but anyone saying "A calorie is not a calorie" can go throw whatever their credentials were into the trashbin that is a trashbin.
Food has many attributes
Seeing a calorie as a stand alone entity in the way your body interacts with food is incomplete.
So in the big picture, a calorie is not just a calorie any more than a relevant description of your car would be just the color.
why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
all calories are the same from an energy perspective; however, they are not all the same from a nutritional aspect....
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
0 -
This is how the calories in a given food is found out.
All foods go through the same sort of test. So a calorie is a calorie, as it is a measurement of energy.0 -
KittensMaster wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
I'm sorry but anyone saying "A calorie is not a calorie" can go throw whatever their credentials were into the trashbin that is a trashbin.
Food has many attributes
This point has been made repeatedly in this thread (since the first response). No one disagrees.
That doesn't change the fact that a calorie (a unit of energy) is a calorie.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
No one suggested that it does. As I said above (in the post immediately before you posted the graphic) fruit is generally a combination of glucose, fructose, and sucrose. "Yes, these two [glucose and fructose] make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions."
The snippet you took out of context was pointing out that unlike table sugar (sucrose) or HFCS (which no one was talking about anyway), which are made up of 50 and 55% fructose, respectively, fruit is the only source we commonly have of fructose itself. I wasn't suggesting that fructose was the only sugar in fruit, but simply that fructose in its uncombined form was one of the sugars in fruit. (Point ripped off from David Katz, for the record: here's one of his pieces on the topic: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130701151512-23027997-fructose-and-the-follies-of-history.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.
If you go out of your way to misinterpret it, I suppose it would be.
David L. Katz is the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
Given that I cite to that Harvard nutrition link all the time I figured it was only fair to find a source at Yale to give some props also.
;-)0 -
Probably the use of pure that caught my eye. Fructose is seldom present alone, unless you buy a packet of crystalline fructose. One of the criticisms of Lustigism is that F doesn't travel alone.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.
If you go out of your way to misinterpret it, I suppose it would be.
David L. Katz is the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
Given that I cite to that Harvard nutrition link all the time I figured it was only fair to find a source at Yale to give some props also.
;-)
Sorry, didn't mean to touch a nerve. It doesn't seem so out of the way to interpret "pure fructose" as "only fructose".0 -
Yes. Fructose is ever so slightly worse for you than glucose. But both are bad in excessive amounts (they both make you fat and provide no nutritional value outside of energy needs). At normal amounts (where you don't gain weight and get plenty of fat and protein) they are perfectly fine.
The WHO and other organizations don't want to demonize fruit, so they argue that added sugars are bad because they provide no nutritional value, and that natural sugars are good because they come along with fiber and other good stuff even when the natural sugar itself provides no nutritional value. Again, it isn't the natural sugar that is good for you, it is the other stuff.0 -
...another person that would be lynched by the mob on herelemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.
If you go out of your way to misinterpret it, I suppose it would be.
David L. Katz is the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
;-)
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.
If you go out of your way to misinterpret it, I suppose it would be.
David L. Katz is the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
Given that I cite to that Harvard nutrition link all the time I figured it was only fair to find a source at Yale to give some props also.
;-)
Sorry, didn't mean to touch a nerve. It doesn't seem so out of the way to interpret "pure fructose" as "only fructose".
Eh, it's just that I'd just immediately previously said that fruit had a combination of three sugars in varying ratios, so you seemed to be reaching to misinterpret for some reason that puzzles me. I'd be happy to have an actual comment on any of the actual points -- I thought we were having a pretty good discussion earlier in the thread.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
...another person that would be lynched by the mob on herelemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.
If you go out of your way to misinterpret it, I suppose it would be.
David L. Katz is the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
;-)
I don't know -- I quite like him and have linked to some of his stuff in other threads, like the Atlantic piece on "real food." (I know that terminology bugs many, but it doesn't me, especially.)
Sometimes I think people go out of their way to misunderstand the usual arguments here. No one says that one can't eat excessive amounts of added sugar or even that the average American doesn't eat excessive quantities of added sugar, along with a poor diet in other ways. So on that I expect we would agree with Katz.
(I also agree with Willett a lot and Pollan a lot and Marion Nestle a lot, although not every single thing they say. And I'm still an MFP moderate.)0 -
nordlead2005 wrote: »Yes. Fructose is ever so slightly worse for you than glucose. But both are bad in excessive amounts (they both make you fat and provide no nutritional value outside of energy needs). At normal amounts (where you don't gain weight and get plenty of fat and protein) they are perfectly fine.
The WHO and other organizations don't want to demonize fruit, so they argue that added sugars are bad because they provide no nutritional value, and that natural sugars are good because they come along with fiber and other good stuff even when the natural sugar itself provides no nutritional value. Again, it isn't the natural sugar that is good for you, it is the other stuff.
Which bugs me to no end because foods with added sugar aren't just straight sugar with nothing else either.-1 -
Yeah -- like I don't care for sugar in oatmeal, but if someone did, and so was more likely to eat oatmeal that way, why would the sugar make the dish overall unhealthy.
Similarly, some think it benefits a tomato-based pasta sauce to add a bit of sugar. Again, I actually don't, but the idea that adding a little sugar makes a dish of tomatoes, other vegetables, maybe some lean ground beef "not nutritious" is bizarre.
Obviously, if someone eats lots of cookies as a percentage of their diet, they are probably eating too many calories from non-nutrient-dense items, but even then most of the calories aren't actually from sugar, but from flour and butter (or whatever fat one uses). I always make this point, but I have one cookie recipe that I bothered to put on MFP, and it has less sugar per cookie than in an apple. It has a lot more calories than an apple, but the largest source of calories is butter. Swapping out some of the cookie calories (for the person eating huge amounts of cookies) for calories from other foods would of course be advisable, but not because the calories in the cookie are different from the calories in some chicken, but because you need protein. Similarly, swapping the cookies for broccoli and carrots and an apple and maybe sweet potato is not advisable because the sugars are different, but because these other foods give you nutrients you weren't getting on the overly-cookie-based diet, presumably.
It's largely common sense.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
...another person that would be lynched by the mob on herelemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)
Do any fruits contain only fructose ? Most have at least one other sugar as per the graphic posted.
Yeah, I don't know who this Katz person is, but that is an odd statement.
If you go out of your way to misinterpret it, I suppose it would be.
David L. Katz is the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
;-)
I don't know -- I quite like him and have linked to some of his stuff in other threads, like the Atlantic piece on "real food." (I know that terminology bugs many, but it doesn't me, especially.)
Sometimes I think people go out of their way to misunderstand the usual arguments here. No one says that one can't eat excessive amounts of added sugar or even that the average American doesn't eat excessive quantities of added sugar, along with a poor diet in other ways. So on that I expect we would agree with Katz.
(I also agree with Willett a lot and Pollan a lot and Marion Nestle a lot, although not every single thing they say. And I'm still an MFP moderate.)
Well, Katz's opinion about added/hidden sugar seems to be quite different from the MFP "mainstream":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU98eOOpM4g
0 -
I will listen when I have time, but you mean the reference to Michael Moss' book? I'm actually reading that now and quite like it (as an aside, Moss debunks the idea common on MFP that people will only overeat sugar, not fat). Or just generally why obesity is common? I don't think the views here are so uniform as you seem to be suggesting, on that. I'd credit environmental factors, but simply say that the world is what it is, so people have to learn to deal with it.
Or that food matters? I think that's widely agreed-upon here -- those who claim otherwise are suggesting that one can't think nutrition matters unless one will say that eating one cookie is, well, toxic. In that I think nutrition is important and a proper understanding of it is helpful -- and that those who want to make it all about avoiding all sugar or "fructose" vs. understanding what we need to construct an overall healthy diet are those who have a poor understanding of nutrition -- I am repeatedly frustrated by the disingenuous claim that most on MFP don't care about nutrition.
Or maybe you are focusing on comments like these:
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/10/sugar_is_not_toxic.htmlDefending sugar is not something David Katz thought he would ever find himself doing. In his two-decade-long career in public health as an associate professor at Yale University and as the director of the Yale Prevention Research Center, Katz has frequently warned about the dangers of excess sugar consumption. But now, he finds himself having to repeatedly debunk the extremist "sugar is toxic" message that has crowded out the less inflammatory evidence-based message of "just eat less sugar."
andI make this comparison not to trivialize the health drawbacks of sugar, only to demonstrate that sugar is obviously not a poison.
The American Heart Association and the World Health Organization recommend that women consume no more than 24 grams of "added sugar" (basically, sugar not found in fruits or non-sweetened milk) each day. For men, that number is 37 grams. Currently, conservative estimates indicate that Americans consume roughly twice the recommended amounts. Much of that sugar comes from nutrient-deficient soft drinks, luxurious desserts, processed food, or candy. Eating too much of any of that stuff increases the risk of fatty liver disease, heart disease, diabetes, and being overweight.
Here's what we know: Eating sugar in excess, as many Americans currently do, is unhealthy. But to take that statement any further down the provocative road is simply not in accordance with the facts. For example, the American Diabetes Association lists the statement, "Eating too much sugar causes diabetes" as one of the biggest diabetes myths.
But again no one disputes that it's possible to eat too much sugar (or that the SAD typically is too high in low nutrient sweet treats, among other things). I've even cited the WHO's position approvingly lots of times (although I do agree with the criticism above, that context matters).
I get the sense that you want to think that the moderate position is that nutrition doesn't matter, but it's not, not at all.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions