Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
So what happens if I eat a Twinkie for dessert after a meal with lots of fiber?
Or a Fibre 1 bar.
Our gym is advertising a bar that has over 20 grams of fiber per piece.
Haven't seen one that high. Wow. There are plenty with 14gr though. I get like 60gr per day (or the same amount in two apples apparently).
3 -
jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
so if I eat a spoonful of raw sugar and then eat some fiber is that good, bad, or indifferent? This whole "because fiber" argument is just idiotic...1 -
jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
(1) What "garbage" is in my processed dried pasta, canned tomatoes (100% tomatoes), cottage cheese, or smoked salmon? (The only one of those processed foods to have any added sugar is the smoked salmon, as most do have a bit used in the smoking process.
(2) Why does having added sugar mean there are specific other things, let along "garbage," in my foods. I can buy high quality ice cream or a bakery item from a bakery without there being anything much more than what I'd add to the same food if making it at home. More to the point, it seems obvious that any item with added sugar can be made at home with whatever ingredients I want to include, so that's hardly the difference between my chocolate chip cookie (180 calories, 14 g sugar) and an average apple (80 calories, 16 g sugar).
People should really drop "processed" as some sort of trendy scare word and use it to mean what it actually means.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
(1) What "garbage" is in my processed dried pasta, canned tomatoes (100% tomatoes), cottage cheese, or smoked salmon? (The only one of those processed foods to have any added sugar is the smoked salmon, as most do have a bit used in the smoking process.
(2) Why does having added sugar mean there are specific other things, let along "garbage," in my foods. I can buy high quality ice cream or a bakery item from a bakery without there being anything much more than what I'd add to the same food if making it at home. More to the point, it seems obvious that any item with added sugar can be made at home with whatever ingredients I want to include, so that's hardly the difference between my chocolate chip cookie (180 calories, 14 g sugar) and an average apple (80 calories, 16 g sugar).
People should really drop "processed" as some sort of trendy scare word and use it to mean what it actually means.
I am torn. Do I give this an "insightful" or "awesome"? Decisions, decisions.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
So what happens if I eat a Twinkie for dessert after a meal with lots of fiber?
Or a Fibre 1 bar.
Our gym is advertising a bar that has over 20 grams of fiber per piece.
Haven't seen one that high. Wow. There are plenty with 14gr though. I get like 60gr per day (or the same amount in two apples apparently).
You had me at "my gym is advertising a bar." Full stop, we're good. Whiskey and deadlifts. Major gym envy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BLCESWF3-E 0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
So what happens if I eat a Twinkie for dessert after a meal with lots of fiber?
Or a Fibre 1 bar.
Our gym is advertising a bar that has over 20 grams of fiber per piece.
Haven't seen one that high. Wow. There are plenty with 14gr though. I get like 60gr per day (or the same amount in two apples apparently).
You had me at "my gym is advertising a bar." Full stop, we're good. Whiskey and deadlifts. Major gym envyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BLCESWF3-E
The gym is actually also advertising a bar owned by the gym owner.1 -
...0
-
stevencloser wrote: »85% of the calories in an apple come from fructose. It's piss easy to eat 3-4 apples over a day to get to that amount of fructose, especially if you're "just eating fruit".
I pointed out multiple reasons why the fructose in a apple isn't likely to be absorbed quickly or even completely. There have been many studies showing that fruit consumption is safe as long is it is the whole fruit. In fact it is even bennifical. Additionally, I don't think most people would find eating 3 or 4 apples a day that easy unless the apples were really small. Apples also have a very large amount of fiber. 2 apples is more than a day's worth of fiber.
every "reason" you has posted has been shown to be myth, woo woo, and complete nonsense....I would suggest re-thinking everything that you think that you know about nutrition.
Really? I posted links to controlled studies that that support my points. The lack of natural knowledge here is astounding. No wonder the US is leading the world in obesity.0 -
jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
So natural fiber makes the body digest sugar more responsibly?
Fiber slows down the digest processes.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Honestly, it sounds like you're conflating cravings for hyperpalatable foods (dessert) with real hunger. If I eat Cheez-Its, I crave more, even if I just had a filling meal.
^This...
No! I've dealt with the hunger for well over a decade. It has nothing to do with cravings. I didn't crave more ice cream or something else. My hunger want more real food. Hunger pains are not cravings. It is amazing to me that some people can't accept a simple fact. What makes you think you can understand the difference between hunger and cravings and I can't?
For me cutting way back on added sugar has greatly reduced my hunger between meals. Typically I don't eat until I'm completely full, so I'll feel like I could eat but don't need to. After 4 or maybe 5 hours normal type hunger starts. That is normal. What used to happen is within two hours of eating I would be feeling seriously hungry. That can't be normal but I sure many people experience it. That probably is why there is so much snacking. I no longer even have the desire to snack.
Once you've dieted down and then bulked and cut some you'll see what people are saying with this. Many of us have been through an adjustment period where we realized what we thought was hunger wasn't really hunger. It won't make sense until you experience it.
That is fine for you, but it isn't me. First my hunger is less than just when I maintaining. Second I know that adding sugar now causes the hunger to come back. I'm not claiming this would be the same for everyone, but it how it works for me.
You are not a special snowflake...
I'm not a snowflake at all. However I'm realizing there is a lot of fruitcake floating around here.
Perfect, resort to name calling. Way to further your hopeless argument...
Read a little ... the attacks on me are pretty nutty.
You are confusing an attack with correcting mis-information.
WHAT you did is working and that is great. Having said that, it is not working for the reasons you THINK it is. You have the HOW confused with the WHAT. It is clear to me that you are beyond reasoning with because you can't fight faith with facts...
You are the one that is ignoring facts and then making up stuff. How I started and where I am today are two different things. It is only added sugar that I'm cutting. Everything else is the same as what I successfully used before to drop close to 30 pounds. When I add sugar I end up being very hungry way too soon. Removing the extra sugar resolves that issue for me.
For some reason you can accept my statement. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and your are right. However I have the facts.
Do you understand that ice cream has more ingredients than just sugar? When you stop eating ice cream you are reducing more than just the sugar. You are reducing calories from sugar as well as fats. Any other desserts that you would cut out would be the same.
You also stopped putting sugar in your oatmeal, but replaced it with raisins. Raisins, like all dried fruits, have high concentrations of sugars. So you didn't really cut your sugar there...
Wrong! Stop assuming things. I have always put raisins in my oatmeal. I cut the sugar. I started with the ice cream but after that I just removed sugar. ONLY SUGAR
Why are so many so hell bent on defending sugar? It is really quite insane.
Because the spread of misinformation makes me twitchy.
If you're SO SURE it's the added sugar specifically (which is weird that you don't have problems with natural sugars from a low-fiber fruit like a banana, or other carbs) and not sugar+fat or sugar+salt or sugar+fat+salt, how about eating 2-3 tbsp of table sugar by itself in between meals and tell us how you feel? If you're suddenly hungry, I recommend writing in to endocrinologists and dieticians so they can study you. Maybe you're the solution to the world's obesity problems!
It isn't weird at all the fruit is okay and I don't know that I wouldn't do even better by cutting back on fruit, I simply haven't tried that. Sugar in fruit is going to be a lot slower getting into the blood stream that sugar added to food. A banana isn't a low fiber as you imply. A typical banana has 3 gram of fiber and one of those grams is soluble fiber which is 1/8 of the minimum soluble fiber one should get daily.
Last night I did look a the effects of cutting back on sugar and at least half the pages mentions reducing hunger. So what I'm describing isn't actually that uncommon.
I might be wrong here, but didn't someone say earlier that ice cream, a food with added sugar, has the similar impact as an apple, a food without added sugar but contains sugar?
ETA - yes, page 10. Stevencloser. I double checked. An apple has almost the same GI as a bowl of ice cream (I chose the option for the premium stuff)
I said ice cream, it wasn't a bowl of ice cream, I don't even know where to buy ice cream like that in Japan. It was typically ice cream bars. My favorite was similar to a Klondike bar, only a lot better chocolate.
Additionally you can't just go by GI, that only indicates per gram. It really doesn't make a difference if the GI is high but only tiny amounts are consumed. GL (glycemic load) is what you should be looking at, that indicates what the impact will be to blood sugar for a serving of something. Then you have to factor in how much of something is eaten. A serving of an apple is pretty large, a serving of ice cream is tiny.
And the glycemic load of an apple vs ice cream is the same, 6.
A serving of ice cream is a half a cup. I do not consider that tiny nor do I consider an apple a large serving.
A typical ice cream bar is 300 kc. That is about 2.5 servings. 2.5 apples takes a lot longer to eat.
There are a lot of reasonable icy treats in Japan, I just wasn't into them. My kids and wife prefer those. (Basically favored ice.)
A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That said, the calories in a serving of ice cream can vary. 300 calories of ice cream is not 2.5 servings...
You are just making things up as you go along. A lot of servings of ice cream are 120 kc. 300 kc / 120 kc = 2.5.
My favorite ice cream when I was in the states was 120 kc in the $1 single server containers ... I know this pretty well.
No, the standard serving size for ice cream is .5 cup, period. The calories range from around 200, on the low end, to over 300. For premium (what we are talking about), I'd assume more fat, so probably closer to 300.
Saying you cut dressing, ice cream, and nuts sure sounds like you are mostly cutting fat, to me. Like I said upthread, a primarily sugary dressing seems weird (and disgusting) to me.
You are doubling, counting 1 cup as a 1/2 cup. http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream
shows 267 calories in 1 cup.
There is also wide ranges in GI & GL even for the same type of fruit. I don't put much faith in that. For example search on apple: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
It just depends on the type of ice cream.
Edy's Slow Churned is usually 100-150 cals/serving
Talenti Gelato is 200-250 cals/serving
Ben and Jerrys usually 250-350 cals/serving
The whole debate is absurd. By calories the desert I liked the most in Japan was 300 kc. About 60g ice cream and the rest a rich chocolate covering. 300 kc is 2.5 good sized apples. By claiming higher calories it just means it would take more apples.
That is why fruit is probably safe, you have to eat a huge amount of it to get the same effect. Besides that there are a lot of claims around fruit in how it slows or prevents the absorption of fructose.
Anyway GI & GL are about glucose and not fructose. I think people keep confusing glucose (which is vital to our survival) and fructose which we really don't need and can only be metabolized in the liver.
No one cares about the specific ice cream dessert you had. You were talking about ice cream, period. Ice cream has a lower GL which is the amount of blood glucose increase it causes. As such it is a good indication of how fast it digests, since sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose, the fructose amount is the same as glucose.
Apples, btw. consist of 2/3 fructose, 85% of which is free fructose, the rest from the sucrose (evil table sugar!) in it.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
You are spreading misinformation. The metabolism of fructose and glucose are complete different. GI/GL is about glucose, it doesn't tell you anything about fructose. You can't assume they are identical.
Okay, if you have 50 grams of sugar, sucrose, which is made out of 25 grams of glucose and fructose, and it has to be split into glucose and fructose to be metabolized, and we know how fast the glucose of it hits the bloodstream...
what does the fructose do in that time?
The same.
First the main metabolic path for fructose is through the liver. The actual reactions that happen depend on the enzymes that are available and amount of fructose being handled. Best case is the fructose is converted to glyceraldehde-3-phosphate which can be use by glycolyisis to produce ATP. However when things go wrong with this complex pathway, weather there is a deficiency or just too much fructose being handle very low density lipids can be produced and multiple compounds that are harmful in the human body such as uric acid. In general not all fructose is converted to be consumed in the glucose pathway. This is why fructose itself has low GI/GL values.
When an apple is consumed there are multiple factors that slow down the rate fructose can hit the blood stream. Just two of these are the ample fiber another is polyphenols and phenolic acids both of which slow down the process. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564476 Contrary to popular opinion, fat is not a replacement for fiber in the digestive process. Fructose absorption is different than glucose absorption and there is some evidence that without enough glucose not all fructose can be absorbed. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/5/748S.short Fructose and glucose occur in different ratios in fruit as compared to sucrose. So in general we don't know how fast the fructose is absorbed without having detailed measurements. Most likely for the reasons presents fructose absortion from fruit is slower than frucotose absortion from added sugars. (sucose, HFCS, etc)
So in short when it comes to fructose an apple isn't equal to a serving of ice cream.
I've seen references that about 60 grams of fructose is the max that can be safely handled per day. However, it does appear there is a limit and it would seem likely that the limit will vary by person. When the limit is exceeded, then the undesirable fats and byproducts are likely produced. By just eating fruit, one will be hard press to get that much fructose, clearly possible but not easy. Added sugars though are probably easily add 40g or more of fructose, at least with a processed food diet.
My take on all this is that eating fruit is fine if one isn't also comsuming a lot of added sugar. Otherwise one is probably slowly damaging the liver and causing other problems. The good news is there is lot of evidence that chaning diet and reverse metabolic symdrome symptoms.
We aren't talking about an apple and ice cream being equal. We were talking about how fast the sugar in each is released into the blood stream. GL measuring that, including the effect fructose has.
They have the same effect of blood sugar.
Does all ice cream have fructose?
More of your ever changing arguments. I pointed out many problems with your comparison.
> Even in same databases there are multiple different GI/GL values for apples and ice cream. However one has to take the highest apple values to be close to the lowest ice cream values.
> GI/GL is measuring glucose in the blood stream and only indirectly measuring fructose. Fructose typically has low GI values compared to glucose because it is a complex process the liver has to go through before fructose can be used in the glucose metabolism.
> Totally non-sense comparison. I already pointed out in detail how the desert I cut out was really more like 2.5 apples. My favorite treat had a rich milk chocolate covering. The sugar in ice cream is bad enough, but the sugar in a rich milk chocolate is worse.
Deserts tend to be a lot more rich than whole fruit. It typically takes a lot of whole fruit to match a desert in calories.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »85% of the calories in an apple come from fructose. It's piss easy to eat 3-4 apples over a day to get to that amount of fructose, especially if you're "just eating fruit".
I pointed out multiple reasons why the fructose in a apple isn't likely to be absorbed quickly or even completely. There have been many studies showing that fruit consumption is safe as long is it is the whole fruit. In fact it is even bennifical. Additionally, I don't think most people would find eating 3 or 4 apples a day that easy unless the apples were really small. Apples also have a very large amount of fiber. 2 apples is more than a day's worth of fiber.
A large apple has about 5 grams of fiber. So 10 grams of fiber is more then a days worth? I think you need to re-think that...
https://www.bing.com/search?q=fiber in apple&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=fiber in apple&sc=8-14&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=4184CF3A7DCC42DBA448DA7E0B0503B1
Okay that source is probably incorrect. So it would be 6 large apples, with skin to get to the 30 grams of fiber.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Honestly, it sounds like you're conflating cravings for hyperpalatable foods (dessert) with real hunger. If I eat Cheez-Its, I crave more, even if I just had a filling meal.
^This...
No! I've dealt with the hunger for well over a decade. It has nothing to do with cravings. I didn't crave more ice cream or something else. My hunger want more real food. Hunger pains are not cravings. It is amazing to me that some people can't accept a simple fact. What makes you think you can understand the difference between hunger and cravings and I can't?
For me cutting way back on added sugar has greatly reduced my hunger between meals. Typically I don't eat until I'm completely full, so I'll feel like I could eat but don't need to. After 4 or maybe 5 hours normal type hunger starts. That is normal. What used to happen is within two hours of eating I would be feeling seriously hungry. That can't be normal but I sure many people experience it. That probably is why there is so much snacking. I no longer even have the desire to snack.
Once you've dieted down and then bulked and cut some you'll see what people are saying with this. Many of us have been through an adjustment period where we realized what we thought was hunger wasn't really hunger. It won't make sense until you experience it.
That is fine for you, but it isn't me. First my hunger is less than just when I maintaining. Second I know that adding sugar now causes the hunger to come back. I'm not claiming this would be the same for everyone, but it how it works for me.
You are not a special snowflake...
I'm not a snowflake at all. However I'm realizing there is a lot of fruitcake floating around here.
Perfect, resort to name calling. Way to further your hopeless argument...
Read a little ... the attacks on me are pretty nutty.
You are confusing an attack with correcting mis-information.
WHAT you did is working and that is great. Having said that, it is not working for the reasons you THINK it is. You have the HOW confused with the WHAT. It is clear to me that you are beyond reasoning with because you can't fight faith with facts...
You are the one that is ignoring facts and then making up stuff. How I started and where I am today are two different things. It is only added sugar that I'm cutting. Everything else is the same as what I successfully used before to drop close to 30 pounds. When I add sugar I end up being very hungry way too soon. Removing the extra sugar resolves that issue for me.
For some reason you can accept my statement. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and your are right. However I have the facts.
Do you understand that ice cream has more ingredients than just sugar? When you stop eating ice cream you are reducing more than just the sugar. You are reducing calories from sugar as well as fats. Any other desserts that you would cut out would be the same.
You also stopped putting sugar in your oatmeal, but replaced it with raisins. Raisins, like all dried fruits, have high concentrations of sugars. So you didn't really cut your sugar there...
Wrong! Stop assuming things. I have always put raisins in my oatmeal. I cut the sugar. I started with the ice cream but after that I just removed sugar. ONLY SUGAR
Why are so many so hell bent on defending sugar? It is really quite insane.
Because the spread of misinformation makes me twitchy.
If you're SO SURE it's the added sugar specifically (which is weird that you don't have problems with natural sugars from a low-fiber fruit like a banana, or other carbs) and not sugar+fat or sugar+salt or sugar+fat+salt, how about eating 2-3 tbsp of table sugar by itself in between meals and tell us how you feel? If you're suddenly hungry, I recommend writing in to endocrinologists and dieticians so they can study you. Maybe you're the solution to the world's obesity problems!
It isn't weird at all the fruit is okay and I don't know that I wouldn't do even better by cutting back on fruit, I simply haven't tried that. Sugar in fruit is going to be a lot slower getting into the blood stream that sugar added to food. A banana isn't a low fiber as you imply. A typical banana has 3 gram of fiber and one of those grams is soluble fiber which is 1/8 of the minimum soluble fiber one should get daily.
Last night I did look a the effects of cutting back on sugar and at least half the pages mentions reducing hunger. So what I'm describing isn't actually that uncommon.
I might be wrong here, but didn't someone say earlier that ice cream, a food with added sugar, has the similar impact as an apple, a food without added sugar but contains sugar?
ETA - yes, page 10. Stevencloser. I double checked. An apple has almost the same GI as a bowl of ice cream (I chose the option for the premium stuff)
I said ice cream, it wasn't a bowl of ice cream, I don't even know where to buy ice cream like that in Japan. It was typically ice cream bars. My favorite was similar to a Klondike bar, only a lot better chocolate.
Additionally you can't just go by GI, that only indicates per gram. It really doesn't make a difference if the GI is high but only tiny amounts are consumed. GL (glycemic load) is what you should be looking at, that indicates what the impact will be to blood sugar for a serving of something. Then you have to factor in how much of something is eaten. A serving of an apple is pretty large, a serving of ice cream is tiny.
And the glycemic load of an apple vs ice cream is the same, 6.
A serving of ice cream is a half a cup. I do not consider that tiny nor do I consider an apple a large serving.
A typical ice cream bar is 300 kc. That is about 2.5 servings. 2.5 apples takes a lot longer to eat.
There are a lot of reasonable icy treats in Japan, I just wasn't into them. My kids and wife prefer those. (Basically favored ice.)
A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That said, the calories in a serving of ice cream can vary. 300 calories of ice cream is not 2.5 servings...
You are just making things up as you go along. A lot of servings of ice cream are 120 kc. 300 kc / 120 kc = 2.5.
My favorite ice cream when I was in the states was 120 kc in the $1 single server containers ... I know this pretty well.
No, the standard serving size for ice cream is .5 cup, period. The calories range from around 200, on the low end, to over 300. For premium (what we are talking about), I'd assume more fat, so probably closer to 300.
Saying you cut dressing, ice cream, and nuts sure sounds like you are mostly cutting fat, to me. Like I said upthread, a primarily sugary dressing seems weird (and disgusting) to me.
You are doubling, counting 1 cup as a 1/2 cup. http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream
shows 267 calories in 1 cup.
There is also wide ranges in GI & GL even for the same type of fruit. I don't put much faith in that. For example search on apple: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
It just depends on the type of ice cream.
Edy's Slow Churned is usually 100-150 cals/serving
Talenti Gelato is 200-250 cals/serving
Ben and Jerrys usually 250-350 cals/serving
The whole debate is absurd. By calories the desert I liked the most in Japan was 300 kc. About 60g ice cream and the rest a rich chocolate covering. 300 kc is 2.5 good sized apples. By claiming higher calories it just means it would take more apples.
And this is the reason cutting ice cream and replacing it with something else (even something with more sugar) might fill you up more. If you are a volume eater or find fiber filling, 2.5 apples are going to be more filling for you than a 300 calorie treat that's mostly about half fat and half sugar and low fiber. It would be more filling for me too, but I don't happen to eat ice cream when I'm hungry, so it's irrelevant. Some find apples not filling or claim they increase hunger, but for me they are filling, despite the fact that they have more sugar than my homemade chocolate chip cookie (which I don't find especially filling--more of its calories are from fat than sugar, though, by far).
What makes no sense to me, however, is claiming that you cut out ice cream treats, nuts, and dressing and that your appetite must have decreased because of sugar, when there's more fat in that and from what you've said you still eat quite a bit more sugar than I do, even though I still regularly eat ice cream (2-3 times a week, depending on the week, about 200-250 cal for .5 cup in my favorites).
I also find it bizarre when someone claims to be ravenously hungry when eating plenty of calories and not food insecure, and when someone claims that they get hungry when they add foods to a diet that is otherwise balanced and satisfying. Now, I don't know if your diet fits the latter or not, but when someone claims more hunger because of highly palatable foods being added, I don't think it's actual hunger. It's a craving or otherwise psychological or at least quite unusual. I've never found that eating more food when I wasn't particularly hungry would make me hungry. I suppose if I did I'd stop, but I wouldn't claim that was some truth that others should live or ignore the fact that my diet (in your hypothetical case) continued to include quite a bit of sugar.
And not just any type of hunger, but overpowering, severe, extreme and crushing...
Trolling ...
Don't flatter yourself snowflake. These are your words, not mine...
They were not my words you embellished them. You should be ashamed of your childish behavior.
Dude, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but are you high? He used your precise word choices. There is no embellishment. He just condensed your adjective choices into a single sentence, likely to show you exactly how absurd you sounded.
Condensed isn't anything close to what I said. He made it sound absurd but hunger in a calorie deficits is very common and defeats many people. The hunger I struggled with is gone now since I've cut back on added sugar. It works well for me.2 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
Or, as I said before, we could just stop paying to try and "fix" people's poor dietary choices throughout life, but that belongs in the other thread. Between getting people as a whole to stop eating so much sugar (in any form), and what I just said, either one is about as likely as the other, unfortunately.
Now, allow me to put forth something anecdotal. A co-worker of mine in his mid-60s had been having trouble with his weight for about 15 years. He didn't finally acknowledge there was a problem until he was diagnosed T2D, and ended up having to take insulin pills to regulate his blood sugar levels. The culprit? Oranges. He was eating about five small oranges per day, while at work, under the impression that "fruit is good for weight loss" or some *kitten* he read somewhere. Mandarin oranges have a better fiber to sugar ratio than apples do, and it was still screwing him over. Once he stopped eating those altogether, he was off the insulin pills within two weeks. Upon further reduction of natural sugars and starches (in the form of tomatoes, potatoes and rice), and the resulting caloric deficit, he was out of the obese range within twelve weeks.
My point? Added sugars and natural sugars will screw you up just the same, assuming that you are overconsuming them. It's almost like the body doesn't give a damn where a macronutrient comes from, or something.6 -
jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
So natural fiber makes the body digest sugar more responsibly?
Fiber slows down the digest processes.
Ah my friend I see you did not pick up on my sarcasm...0 -
jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
So natural fiber makes the body digest sugar more responsibly?
Fiber slows down the digest processes.
Ah my friend I see you did not pick up on my sarcasm...
Oh, okay I did totally misunderstand!0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
Or, as I said before, we could just stop paying to try and "fix" people's poor dietary choices throughout life, but that belongs in the other thread. Between getting people as a whole to stop eating so much sugar (in any form), and what I just said, either one is about as likely as the other, unfortunately.
Now, allow me to put forth something anecdotal. A co-worker of mine in his mid-60s had been having trouble with his weight for about 15 years. He didn't finally acknowledge there was a problem until he was diagnosed T2D, and ended up having to take insulin pills to regulate his blood sugar levels. The culprit? Oranges. He was eating about five small oranges per day, while at work, under the impression that "fruit is good for weight loss" or some *kitten* he read somewhere. Mandarin oranges have a better fiber to sugar ratio than apples do, and it was still screwing him over. Once he stopped eating those altogether, he was off the insulin pills within two weeks. Upon further reduction of natural sugars and starches (in the form of tomatoes, potatoes and rice), and the resulting caloric deficit, he was out of the obese range within twelve weeks.
My point? Added sugars and natural sugars will screw you up just the same, assuming that you are overconsuming them. It's almost like the body doesn't give a damn where a macronutrient comes from, or something.
I don't doubt your story, I'm sure there are other cases that are similar. However that doesn't mean fruit is as bad as "sweeten beverages" which are really messing up people around the world, especially when it comes to metabolic issues like T2D. The problem with these things is it takes years to manifest. Anyway, most of the obese kids around the world aren't getting that way by eating too much fruit. At least with fruit you get stuff back that is actually good for you too. Also fruit fills you much longer than a soda will. That is the real problem with soda, calories without satisfying hunger.
Strangely enough I don't have real issues with diet drinks, not that there is a great deal of research at least on what the artificial sweetners actually do inside a body. For now I'm assuming that vastly lower amounts needed probably reduces any toxiticy to a non-issue and most of them just pass in urine if they make it to the bloodstream. (Head in the sand approach.) However since cutting back on added sugar I don't drink many diet drinks, I'm mostly just drinking water, straight teas and coffee. Mostly water because it tastes better now and water is the best thing to replaced sweat.
Anyway at least we can agree that too much sugar is a problem.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
You're not alone in refusing to look at evidence. You join the ranks of Mercola, Dr. Oz, and the Food Babe6 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
You're not alone in refusing to look at evidence. You join the ranks of Mercola, Dr. Oz, and the Food Babe
Not likely ... I just don't let bloggers to my thinking for me. A lot of the references are even used other places for different points.
0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
You're not alone in refusing to look at evidence. You join the ranks of Mercola, Dr. Oz, and the Food Babe
Not likely ... I just don't let bloggers to my thinking for me.
You should go back and read what you've posted. I'm laughing now. Good luck getting into shape2 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Honestly, it sounds like you're conflating cravings for hyperpalatable foods (dessert) with real hunger. If I eat Cheez-Its, I crave more, even if I just had a filling meal.
^This...
No! I've dealt with the hunger for well over a decade. It has nothing to do with cravings. I didn't crave more ice cream or something else. My hunger want more real food. Hunger pains are not cravings. It is amazing to me that some people can't accept a simple fact. What makes you think you can understand the difference between hunger and cravings and I can't?
For me cutting way back on added sugar has greatly reduced my hunger between meals. Typically I don't eat until I'm completely full, so I'll feel like I could eat but don't need to. After 4 or maybe 5 hours normal type hunger starts. That is normal. What used to happen is within two hours of eating I would be feeling seriously hungry. That can't be normal but I sure many people experience it. That probably is why there is so much snacking. I no longer even have the desire to snack.
Once you've dieted down and then bulked and cut some you'll see what people are saying with this. Many of us have been through an adjustment period where we realized what we thought was hunger wasn't really hunger. It won't make sense until you experience it.
That is fine for you, but it isn't me. First my hunger is less than just when I maintaining. Second I know that adding sugar now causes the hunger to come back. I'm not claiming this would be the same for everyone, but it how it works for me.
You are not a special snowflake...
I'm not a snowflake at all. However I'm realizing there is a lot of fruitcake floating around here.
Perfect, resort to name calling. Way to further your hopeless argument...
Read a little ... the attacks on me are pretty nutty.
You are confusing an attack with correcting mis-information.
WHAT you did is working and that is great. Having said that, it is not working for the reasons you THINK it is. You have the HOW confused with the WHAT. It is clear to me that you are beyond reasoning with because you can't fight faith with facts...
You are the one that is ignoring facts and then making up stuff. How I started and where I am today are two different things. It is only added sugar that I'm cutting. Everything else is the same as what I successfully used before to drop close to 30 pounds. When I add sugar I end up being very hungry way too soon. Removing the extra sugar resolves that issue for me.
For some reason you can accept my statement. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and your are right. However I have the facts.
Do you understand that ice cream has more ingredients than just sugar? When you stop eating ice cream you are reducing more than just the sugar. You are reducing calories from sugar as well as fats. Any other desserts that you would cut out would be the same.
You also stopped putting sugar in your oatmeal, but replaced it with raisins. Raisins, like all dried fruits, have high concentrations of sugars. So you didn't really cut your sugar there...
Wrong! Stop assuming things. I have always put raisins in my oatmeal. I cut the sugar. I started with the ice cream but after that I just removed sugar. ONLY SUGAR
Why are so many so hell bent on defending sugar? It is really quite insane.
Because the spread of misinformation makes me twitchy.
If you're SO SURE it's the added sugar specifically (which is weird that you don't have problems with natural sugars from a low-fiber fruit like a banana, or other carbs) and not sugar+fat or sugar+salt or sugar+fat+salt, how about eating 2-3 tbsp of table sugar by itself in between meals and tell us how you feel? If you're suddenly hungry, I recommend writing in to endocrinologists and dieticians so they can study you. Maybe you're the solution to the world's obesity problems!
It isn't weird at all the fruit is okay and I don't know that I wouldn't do even better by cutting back on fruit, I simply haven't tried that. Sugar in fruit is going to be a lot slower getting into the blood stream that sugar added to food. A banana isn't a low fiber as you imply. A typical banana has 3 gram of fiber and one of those grams is soluble fiber which is 1/8 of the minimum soluble fiber one should get daily.
Last night I did look a the effects of cutting back on sugar and at least half the pages mentions reducing hunger. So what I'm describing isn't actually that uncommon.
I might be wrong here, but didn't someone say earlier that ice cream, a food with added sugar, has the similar impact as an apple, a food without added sugar but contains sugar?
ETA - yes, page 10. Stevencloser. I double checked. An apple has almost the same GI as a bowl of ice cream (I chose the option for the premium stuff)
I said ice cream, it wasn't a bowl of ice cream, I don't even know where to buy ice cream like that in Japan. It was typically ice cream bars. My favorite was similar to a Klondike bar, only a lot better chocolate.
Additionally you can't just go by GI, that only indicates per gram. It really doesn't make a difference if the GI is high but only tiny amounts are consumed. GL (glycemic load) is what you should be looking at, that indicates what the impact will be to blood sugar for a serving of something. Then you have to factor in how much of something is eaten. A serving of an apple is pretty large, a serving of ice cream is tiny.
And the glycemic load of an apple vs ice cream is the same, 6.
A serving of ice cream is a half a cup. I do not consider that tiny nor do I consider an apple a large serving.
A typical ice cream bar is 300 kc. That is about 2.5 servings. 2.5 apples takes a lot longer to eat.
There are a lot of reasonable icy treats in Japan, I just wasn't into them. My kids and wife prefer those. (Basically favored ice.)
A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That said, the calories in a serving of ice cream can vary. 300 calories of ice cream is not 2.5 servings...
You are just making things up as you go along. A lot of servings of ice cream are 120 kc. 300 kc / 120 kc = 2.5.
My favorite ice cream when I was in the states was 120 kc in the $1 single server containers ... I know this pretty well.
No, the standard serving size for ice cream is .5 cup, period. The calories range from around 200, on the low end, to over 300. For premium (what we are talking about), I'd assume more fat, so probably closer to 300.
Saying you cut dressing, ice cream, and nuts sure sounds like you are mostly cutting fat, to me. Like I said upthread, a primarily sugary dressing seems weird (and disgusting) to me.
You are doubling, counting 1 cup as a 1/2 cup. http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream
shows 267 calories in 1 cup.
There is also wide ranges in GI & GL even for the same type of fruit. I don't put much faith in that. For example search on apple: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
It just depends on the type of ice cream.
Edy's Slow Churned is usually 100-150 cals/serving
Talenti Gelato is 200-250 cals/serving
Ben and Jerrys usually 250-350 cals/serving
The whole debate is absurd. By calories the desert I liked the most in Japan was 300 kc. About 60g ice cream and the rest a rich chocolate covering. 300 kc is 2.5 good sized apples. By claiming higher calories it just means it would take more apples.
That is why fruit is probably safe, you have to eat a huge amount of it to get the same effect. Besides that there are a lot of claims around fruit in how it slows or prevents the absorption of fructose.
Anyway GI & GL are about glucose and not fructose. I think people keep confusing glucose (which is vital to our survival) and fructose which we really don't need and can only be metabolized in the liver.
No one cares about the specific ice cream dessert you had. You were talking about ice cream, period. Ice cream has a lower GL which is the amount of blood glucose increase it causes. As such it is a good indication of how fast it digests, since sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose, the fructose amount is the same as glucose.
Apples, btw. consist of 2/3 fructose, 85% of which is free fructose, the rest from the sucrose (evil table sugar!) in it.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
You are spreading misinformation. The metabolism of fructose and glucose are complete different. GI/GL is about glucose, it doesn't tell you anything about fructose. You can't assume they are identical.
Okay, if you have 50 grams of sugar, sucrose, which is made out of 25 grams of glucose and fructose, and it has to be split into glucose and fructose to be metabolized, and we know how fast the glucose of it hits the bloodstream...
what does the fructose do in that time?
The same.
First the main metabolic path for fructose is through the liver. The actual reactions that happen depend on the enzymes that are available and amount of fructose being handled. Best case is the fructose is converted to glyceraldehde-3-phosphate which can be use by glycolyisis to produce ATP. However when things go wrong with this complex pathway, weather there is a deficiency or just too much fructose being handle very low density lipids can be produced and multiple compounds that are harmful in the human body such as uric acid. In general not all fructose is converted to be consumed in the glucose pathway. This is why fructose itself has low GI/GL values.
When an apple is consumed there are multiple factors that slow down the rate fructose can hit the blood stream. Just two of these are the ample fiber another is polyphenols and phenolic acids both of which slow down the process. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564476 Contrary to popular opinion, fat is not a replacement for fiber in the digestive process. Fructose absorption is different than glucose absorption and there is some evidence that without enough glucose not all fructose can be absorbed. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/5/748S.short Fructose and glucose occur in different ratios in fruit as compared to sucrose. So in general we don't know how fast the fructose is absorbed without having detailed measurements. Most likely for the reasons presents fructose absortion from fruit is slower than frucotose absortion from added sugars. (sucose, HFCS, etc)
So in short when it comes to fructose an apple isn't equal to a serving of ice cream.
I've seen references that about 60 grams of fructose is the max that can be safely handled per day. However, it does appear there is a limit and it would seem likely that the limit will vary by person. When the limit is exceeded, then the undesirable fats and byproducts are likely produced. By just eating fruit, one will be hard press to get that much fructose, clearly possible but not easy. Added sugars though are probably easily add 40g or more of fructose, at least with a processed food diet.
My take on all this is that eating fruit is fine if one isn't also comsuming a lot of added sugar. Otherwise one is probably slowly damaging the liver and causing other problems. The good news is there is lot of evidence that chaning diet and reverse metabolic symdrome symptoms.
We aren't talking about an apple and ice cream being equal. We were talking about how fast the sugar in each is released into the blood stream. GL measuring that, including the effect fructose has.
They have the same effect of blood sugar.
Does all ice cream have fructose?
More of your ever changing arguments. I pointed out many problems with your comparison.
> Even in same databases there are multiple different GI/GL values for apples and ice cream. However one has to take the highest apple values to be close to the lowest ice cream values.
> GI/GL is measuring glucose in the blood stream and only indirectly measuring fructose. Fructose typically has low GI values compared to glucose because it is a complex process the liver has to go through before fructose can be used in the glucose metabolism.
> Totally non-sense comparison. I already pointed out in detail how the desert I cut out was really more like 2.5 apples. My favorite treat had a rich milk chocolate covering. The sugar in ice cream is bad enough, but the sugar in a rich milk chocolate is worse.
Deserts tend to be a lot more rich than whole fruit. It typically takes a lot of whole fruit to match a desert in calories.
That's because of fat, not sugar.
Again, one of my chocolate chip cookies has something like 180 calories (might be more, I'd have to check) and 14 g sugar. The largest source of calories is butter. A typical apple has 80 calories and 16 g of sugar.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Honestly, it sounds like you're conflating cravings for hyperpalatable foods (dessert) with real hunger. If I eat Cheez-Its, I crave more, even if I just had a filling meal.
^This...
No! I've dealt with the hunger for well over a decade. It has nothing to do with cravings. I didn't crave more ice cream or something else. My hunger want more real food. Hunger pains are not cravings. It is amazing to me that some people can't accept a simple fact. What makes you think you can understand the difference between hunger and cravings and I can't?
For me cutting way back on added sugar has greatly reduced my hunger between meals. Typically I don't eat until I'm completely full, so I'll feel like I could eat but don't need to. After 4 or maybe 5 hours normal type hunger starts. That is normal. What used to happen is within two hours of eating I would be feeling seriously hungry. That can't be normal but I sure many people experience it. That probably is why there is so much snacking. I no longer even have the desire to snack.
Once you've dieted down and then bulked and cut some you'll see what people are saying with this. Many of us have been through an adjustment period where we realized what we thought was hunger wasn't really hunger. It won't make sense until you experience it.
That is fine for you, but it isn't me. First my hunger is less than just when I maintaining. Second I know that adding sugar now causes the hunger to come back. I'm not claiming this would be the same for everyone, but it how it works for me.
You are not a special snowflake...
I'm not a snowflake at all. However I'm realizing there is a lot of fruitcake floating around here.
Perfect, resort to name calling. Way to further your hopeless argument...
Read a little ... the attacks on me are pretty nutty.
You are confusing an attack with correcting mis-information.
WHAT you did is working and that is great. Having said that, it is not working for the reasons you THINK it is. You have the HOW confused with the WHAT. It is clear to me that you are beyond reasoning with because you can't fight faith with facts...
You are the one that is ignoring facts and then making up stuff. How I started and where I am today are two different things. It is only added sugar that I'm cutting. Everything else is the same as what I successfully used before to drop close to 30 pounds. When I add sugar I end up being very hungry way too soon. Removing the extra sugar resolves that issue for me.
For some reason you can accept my statement. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and your are right. However I have the facts.
Do you understand that ice cream has more ingredients than just sugar? When you stop eating ice cream you are reducing more than just the sugar. You are reducing calories from sugar as well as fats. Any other desserts that you would cut out would be the same.
You also stopped putting sugar in your oatmeal, but replaced it with raisins. Raisins, like all dried fruits, have high concentrations of sugars. So you didn't really cut your sugar there...
Wrong! Stop assuming things. I have always put raisins in my oatmeal. I cut the sugar. I started with the ice cream but after that I just removed sugar. ONLY SUGAR
Why are so many so hell bent on defending sugar? It is really quite insane.
Because the spread of misinformation makes me twitchy.
If you're SO SURE it's the added sugar specifically (which is weird that you don't have problems with natural sugars from a low-fiber fruit like a banana, or other carbs) and not sugar+fat or sugar+salt or sugar+fat+salt, how about eating 2-3 tbsp of table sugar by itself in between meals and tell us how you feel? If you're suddenly hungry, I recommend writing in to endocrinologists and dieticians so they can study you. Maybe you're the solution to the world's obesity problems!
It isn't weird at all the fruit is okay and I don't know that I wouldn't do even better by cutting back on fruit, I simply haven't tried that. Sugar in fruit is going to be a lot slower getting into the blood stream that sugar added to food. A banana isn't a low fiber as you imply. A typical banana has 3 gram of fiber and one of those grams is soluble fiber which is 1/8 of the minimum soluble fiber one should get daily.
Last night I did look a the effects of cutting back on sugar and at least half the pages mentions reducing hunger. So what I'm describing isn't actually that uncommon.
I might be wrong here, but didn't someone say earlier that ice cream, a food with added sugar, has the similar impact as an apple, a food without added sugar but contains sugar?
ETA - yes, page 10. Stevencloser. I double checked. An apple has almost the same GI as a bowl of ice cream (I chose the option for the premium stuff)
I said ice cream, it wasn't a bowl of ice cream, I don't even know where to buy ice cream like that in Japan. It was typically ice cream bars. My favorite was similar to a Klondike bar, only a lot better chocolate.
Additionally you can't just go by GI, that only indicates per gram. It really doesn't make a difference if the GI is high but only tiny amounts are consumed. GL (glycemic load) is what you should be looking at, that indicates what the impact will be to blood sugar for a serving of something. Then you have to factor in how much of something is eaten. A serving of an apple is pretty large, a serving of ice cream is tiny.
And the glycemic load of an apple vs ice cream is the same, 6.
A serving of ice cream is a half a cup. I do not consider that tiny nor do I consider an apple a large serving.
A typical ice cream bar is 300 kc. That is about 2.5 servings. 2.5 apples takes a lot longer to eat.
There are a lot of reasonable icy treats in Japan, I just wasn't into them. My kids and wife prefer those. (Basically favored ice.)
A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That said, the calories in a serving of ice cream can vary. 300 calories of ice cream is not 2.5 servings...
You are just making things up as you go along. A lot of servings of ice cream are 120 kc. 300 kc / 120 kc = 2.5.
My favorite ice cream when I was in the states was 120 kc in the $1 single server containers ... I know this pretty well.
No, the standard serving size for ice cream is .5 cup, period. The calories range from around 200, on the low end, to over 300. For premium (what we are talking about), I'd assume more fat, so probably closer to 300.
Saying you cut dressing, ice cream, and nuts sure sounds like you are mostly cutting fat, to me. Like I said upthread, a primarily sugary dressing seems weird (and disgusting) to me.
You are doubling, counting 1 cup as a 1/2 cup. http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream
shows 267 calories in 1 cup.
There is also wide ranges in GI & GL even for the same type of fruit. I don't put much faith in that. For example search on apple: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
It just depends on the type of ice cream.
Edy's Slow Churned is usually 100-150 cals/serving
Talenti Gelato is 200-250 cals/serving
Ben and Jerrys usually 250-350 cals/serving
The whole debate is absurd. By calories the desert I liked the most in Japan was 300 kc. About 60g ice cream and the rest a rich chocolate covering. 300 kc is 2.5 good sized apples. By claiming higher calories it just means it would take more apples.
That is why fruit is probably safe, you have to eat a huge amount of it to get the same effect. Besides that there are a lot of claims around fruit in how it slows or prevents the absorption of fructose.
Anyway GI & GL are about glucose and not fructose. I think people keep confusing glucose (which is vital to our survival) and fructose which we really don't need and can only be metabolized in the liver.
No one cares about the specific ice cream dessert you had. You were talking about ice cream, period. Ice cream has a lower GL which is the amount of blood glucose increase it causes. As such it is a good indication of how fast it digests, since sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose, the fructose amount is the same as glucose.
Apples, btw. consist of 2/3 fructose, 85% of which is free fructose, the rest from the sucrose (evil table sugar!) in it.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
You are spreading misinformation. The metabolism of fructose and glucose are complete different. GI/GL is about glucose, it doesn't tell you anything about fructose. You can't assume they are identical.
Okay, if you have 50 grams of sugar, sucrose, which is made out of 25 grams of glucose and fructose, and it has to be split into glucose and fructose to be metabolized, and we know how fast the glucose of it hits the bloodstream...
what does the fructose do in that time?
The same.
First the main metabolic path for fructose is through the liver. The actual reactions that happen depend on the enzymes that are available and amount of fructose being handled. Best case is the fructose is converted to glyceraldehde-3-phosphate which can be use by glycolyisis to produce ATP. However when things go wrong with this complex pathway, weather there is a deficiency or just too much fructose being handle very low density lipids can be produced and multiple compounds that are harmful in the human body such as uric acid. In general not all fructose is converted to be consumed in the glucose pathway. This is why fructose itself has low GI/GL values.
When an apple is consumed there are multiple factors that slow down the rate fructose can hit the blood stream. Just two of these are the ample fiber another is polyphenols and phenolic acids both of which slow down the process. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564476 Contrary to popular opinion, fat is not a replacement for fiber in the digestive process. Fructose absorption is different than glucose absorption and there is some evidence that without enough glucose not all fructose can be absorbed. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/5/748S.short Fructose and glucose occur in different ratios in fruit as compared to sucrose. So in general we don't know how fast the fructose is absorbed without having detailed measurements. Most likely for the reasons presents fructose absortion from fruit is slower than frucotose absortion from added sugars. (sucose, HFCS, etc)
So in short when it comes to fructose an apple isn't equal to a serving of ice cream.
I've seen references that about 60 grams of fructose is the max that can be safely handled per day. However, it does appear there is a limit and it would seem likely that the limit will vary by person. When the limit is exceeded, then the undesirable fats and byproducts are likely produced. By just eating fruit, one will be hard press to get that much fructose, clearly possible but not easy. Added sugars though are probably easily add 40g or more of fructose, at least with a processed food diet.
My take on all this is that eating fruit is fine if one isn't also comsuming a lot of added sugar. Otherwise one is probably slowly damaging the liver and causing other problems. The good news is there is lot of evidence that chaning diet and reverse metabolic symdrome symptoms.
We aren't talking about an apple and ice cream being equal. We were talking about how fast the sugar in each is released into the blood stream. GL measuring that, including the effect fructose has.
They have the same effect of blood sugar.
Does all ice cream have fructose?
More of your ever changing arguments. I pointed out many problems with your comparison.
> Even in same databases there are multiple different GI/GL values for apples and ice cream. However one has to take the highest apple values to be close to the lowest ice cream values.
> GI/GL is measuring glucose in the blood stream and only indirectly measuring fructose. Fructose typically has low GI values compared to glucose because it is a complex process the liver has to go through before fructose can be used in the glucose metabolism.
> Totally non-sense comparison. I already pointed out in detail how the desert I cut out was really more like 2.5 apples. My favorite treat had a rich milk chocolate covering. The sugar in ice cream is bad enough, but the sugar in a rich milk chocolate is worse.
Deserts tend to be a lot more rich than whole fruit. It typically takes a lot of whole fruit to match a desert in calories.
That's because of fat, not sugar.
Again, one of my chocolate chip cookies has something like 180 calories (might be more, I'd have to check) and 14 g sugar. The largest source of calories is butter. A typical apple has 80 calories and 16 g of sugar.
Water content has a lot to do with it as well. I'd need to run the numbers, but something tells me that an apple has at least a factor of twenty more water weight than that cookie.0 -
I think fiber slows cognitive brain function...5
-
stevencloser wrote: »85% of the calories in an apple come from fructose. It's piss easy to eat 3-4 apples over a day to get to that amount of fructose, especially if you're "just eating fruit".
I pointed out multiple reasons why the fructose in a apple isn't likely to be absorbed quickly or even completely. There have been many studies showing that fruit consumption is safe as long is it is the whole fruit. In fact it is even bennifical. Additionally, I don't think most people would find eating 3 or 4 apples a day that easy unless the apples were really small. Apples also have a very large amount of fiber. 2 apples is more than a day's worth of fiber.
every "reason" you has posted has been shown to be myth, woo woo, and complete nonsense....I would suggest re-thinking everything that you think that you know about nutrition.
Really? I posted links to controlled studies that that support my points. The lack of natural knowledge here is astounding. No wonder the US is leading the world in obesity.
No you didn't. You posted links to fear mongering websites that cherry picked and misrepresented said studies. Not the same6 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Honestly, it sounds like you're conflating cravings for hyperpalatable foods (dessert) with real hunger. If I eat Cheez-Its, I crave more, even if I just had a filling meal.
^This...
No! I've dealt with the hunger for well over a decade. It has nothing to do with cravings. I didn't crave more ice cream or something else. My hunger want more real food. Hunger pains are not cravings. It is amazing to me that some people can't accept a simple fact. What makes you think you can understand the difference between hunger and cravings and I can't?
For me cutting way back on added sugar has greatly reduced my hunger between meals. Typically I don't eat until I'm completely full, so I'll feel like I could eat but don't need to. After 4 or maybe 5 hours normal type hunger starts. That is normal. What used to happen is within two hours of eating I would be feeling seriously hungry. That can't be normal but I sure many people experience it. That probably is why there is so much snacking. I no longer even have the desire to snack.
Once you've dieted down and then bulked and cut some you'll see what people are saying with this. Many of us have been through an adjustment period where we realized what we thought was hunger wasn't really hunger. It won't make sense until you experience it.
That is fine for you, but it isn't me. First my hunger is less than just when I maintaining. Second I know that adding sugar now causes the hunger to come back. I'm not claiming this would be the same for everyone, but it how it works for me.
You are not a special snowflake...
I'm not a snowflake at all. However I'm realizing there is a lot of fruitcake floating around here.
Perfect, resort to name calling. Way to further your hopeless argument...
Read a little ... the attacks on me are pretty nutty.
You are confusing an attack with correcting mis-information.
WHAT you did is working and that is great. Having said that, it is not working for the reasons you THINK it is. You have the HOW confused with the WHAT. It is clear to me that you are beyond reasoning with because you can't fight faith with facts...
You are the one that is ignoring facts and then making up stuff. How I started and where I am today are two different things. It is only added sugar that I'm cutting. Everything else is the same as what I successfully used before to drop close to 30 pounds. When I add sugar I end up being very hungry way too soon. Removing the extra sugar resolves that issue for me.
For some reason you can accept my statement. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and your are right. However I have the facts.
Do you understand that ice cream has more ingredients than just sugar? When you stop eating ice cream you are reducing more than just the sugar. You are reducing calories from sugar as well as fats. Any other desserts that you would cut out would be the same.
You also stopped putting sugar in your oatmeal, but replaced it with raisins. Raisins, like all dried fruits, have high concentrations of sugars. So you didn't really cut your sugar there...
Wrong! Stop assuming things. I have always put raisins in my oatmeal. I cut the sugar. I started with the ice cream but after that I just removed sugar. ONLY SUGAR
Why are so many so hell bent on defending sugar? It is really quite insane.
Because the spread of misinformation makes me twitchy.
If you're SO SURE it's the added sugar specifically (which is weird that you don't have problems with natural sugars from a low-fiber fruit like a banana, or other carbs) and not sugar+fat or sugar+salt or sugar+fat+salt, how about eating 2-3 tbsp of table sugar by itself in between meals and tell us how you feel? If you're suddenly hungry, I recommend writing in to endocrinologists and dieticians so they can study you. Maybe you're the solution to the world's obesity problems!
It isn't weird at all the fruit is okay and I don't know that I wouldn't do even better by cutting back on fruit, I simply haven't tried that. Sugar in fruit is going to be a lot slower getting into the blood stream that sugar added to food. A banana isn't a low fiber as you imply. A typical banana has 3 gram of fiber and one of those grams is soluble fiber which is 1/8 of the minimum soluble fiber one should get daily.
Last night I did look a the effects of cutting back on sugar and at least half the pages mentions reducing hunger. So what I'm describing isn't actually that uncommon.
I might be wrong here, but didn't someone say earlier that ice cream, a food with added sugar, has the similar impact as an apple, a food without added sugar but contains sugar?
ETA - yes, page 10. Stevencloser. I double checked. An apple has almost the same GI as a bowl of ice cream (I chose the option for the premium stuff)
I said ice cream, it wasn't a bowl of ice cream, I don't even know where to buy ice cream like that in Japan. It was typically ice cream bars. My favorite was similar to a Klondike bar, only a lot better chocolate.
Additionally you can't just go by GI, that only indicates per gram. It really doesn't make a difference if the GI is high but only tiny amounts are consumed. GL (glycemic load) is what you should be looking at, that indicates what the impact will be to blood sugar for a serving of something. Then you have to factor in how much of something is eaten. A serving of an apple is pretty large, a serving of ice cream is tiny.
And the glycemic load of an apple vs ice cream is the same, 6.
A serving of ice cream is a half a cup. I do not consider that tiny nor do I consider an apple a large serving.
A typical ice cream bar is 300 kc. That is about 2.5 servings. 2.5 apples takes a lot longer to eat.
There are a lot of reasonable icy treats in Japan, I just wasn't into them. My kids and wife prefer those. (Basically favored ice.)
A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That said, the calories in a serving of ice cream can vary. 300 calories of ice cream is not 2.5 servings...
You are just making things up as you go along. A lot of servings of ice cream are 120 kc. 300 kc / 120 kc = 2.5.
My favorite ice cream when I was in the states was 120 kc in the $1 single server containers ... I know this pretty well.
No, the standard serving size for ice cream is .5 cup, period. The calories range from around 200, on the low end, to over 300. For premium (what we are talking about), I'd assume more fat, so probably closer to 300.
Saying you cut dressing, ice cream, and nuts sure sounds like you are mostly cutting fat, to me. Like I said upthread, a primarily sugary dressing seems weird (and disgusting) to me.
You are doubling, counting 1 cup as a 1/2 cup. http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream
shows 267 calories in 1 cup.
There is also wide ranges in GI & GL even for the same type of fruit. I don't put much faith in that. For example search on apple: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
It just depends on the type of ice cream.
Edy's Slow Churned is usually 100-150 cals/serving
Talenti Gelato is 200-250 cals/serving
Ben and Jerrys usually 250-350 cals/serving
The whole debate is absurd. By calories the desert I liked the most in Japan was 300 kc. About 60g ice cream and the rest a rich chocolate covering. 300 kc is 2.5 good sized apples. By claiming higher calories it just means it would take more apples.
That is why fruit is probably safe, you have to eat a huge amount of it to get the same effect. Besides that there are a lot of claims around fruit in how it slows or prevents the absorption of fructose.
Anyway GI & GL are about glucose and not fructose. I think people keep confusing glucose (which is vital to our survival) and fructose which we really don't need and can only be metabolized in the liver.
No one cares about the specific ice cream dessert you had. You were talking about ice cream, period. Ice cream has a lower GL which is the amount of blood glucose increase it causes. As such it is a good indication of how fast it digests, since sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose, the fructose amount is the same as glucose.
Apples, btw. consist of 2/3 fructose, 85% of which is free fructose, the rest from the sucrose (evil table sugar!) in it.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
You are spreading misinformation. The metabolism of fructose and glucose are complete different. GI/GL is about glucose, it doesn't tell you anything about fructose. You can't assume they are identical.
Okay, if you have 50 grams of sugar, sucrose, which is made out of 25 grams of glucose and fructose, and it has to be split into glucose and fructose to be metabolized, and we know how fast the glucose of it hits the bloodstream...
what does the fructose do in that time?
The same.
First the main metabolic path for fructose is through the liver. The actual reactions that happen depend on the enzymes that are available and amount of fructose being handled. Best case is the fructose is converted to glyceraldehde-3-phosphate which can be use by glycolyisis to produce ATP. However when things go wrong with this complex pathway, weather there is a deficiency or just too much fructose being handle very low density lipids can be produced and multiple compounds that are harmful in the human body such as uric acid. In general not all fructose is converted to be consumed in the glucose pathway. This is why fructose itself has low GI/GL values.
When an apple is consumed there are multiple factors that slow down the rate fructose can hit the blood stream. Just two of these are the ample fiber another is polyphenols and phenolic acids both of which slow down the process. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564476 Contrary to popular opinion, fat is not a replacement for fiber in the digestive process. Fructose absorption is different than glucose absorption and there is some evidence that without enough glucose not all fructose can be absorbed. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/5/748S.short Fructose and glucose occur in different ratios in fruit as compared to sucrose. So in general we don't know how fast the fructose is absorbed without having detailed measurements. Most likely for the reasons presents fructose absortion from fruit is slower than frucotose absortion from added sugars. (sucose, HFCS, etc)
So in short when it comes to fructose an apple isn't equal to a serving of ice cream.
I've seen references that about 60 grams of fructose is the max that can be safely handled per day. However, it does appear there is a limit and it would seem likely that the limit will vary by person. When the limit is exceeded, then the undesirable fats and byproducts are likely produced. By just eating fruit, one will be hard press to get that much fructose, clearly possible but not easy. Added sugars though are probably easily add 40g or more of fructose, at least with a processed food diet.
My take on all this is that eating fruit is fine if one isn't also comsuming a lot of added sugar. Otherwise one is probably slowly damaging the liver and causing other problems. The good news is there is lot of evidence that chaning diet and reverse metabolic symdrome symptoms.
We aren't talking about an apple and ice cream being equal. We were talking about how fast the sugar in each is released into the blood stream. GL measuring that, including the effect fructose has.
They have the same effect of blood sugar.
Does all ice cream have fructose?
More of your ever changing arguments. I pointed out many problems with your comparison.
> Even in same databases there are multiple different GI/GL values for apples and ice cream. However one has to take the highest apple values to be close to the lowest ice cream values.
> GI/GL is measuring glucose in the blood stream and only indirectly measuring fructose. Fructose typically has low GI values compared to glucose because it is a complex process the liver has to go through before fructose can be used in the glucose metabolism.
> Totally non-sense comparison. I already pointed out in detail how the desert I cut out was really more like 2.5 apples. My favorite treat had a rich milk chocolate covering. The sugar in ice cream is bad enough, but the sugar in a rich milk chocolate is worse.
Deserts tend to be a lot more rich than whole fruit. It typically takes a lot of whole fruit to match a desert in calories.
That's because of fat, not sugar.
Again, one of my chocolate chip cookies has something like 180 calories (might be more, I'd have to check) and 14 g sugar. The largest source of calories is butter. A typical apple has 80 calories and 16 g of sugar.
Water content has a lot to do with it as well. I'd need to run the numbers, but something tells me that an apple has at least a factor of twenty more water weight than that cookie.
That might make the apple more filling than the cookie (I actually find the two about equally filling, although I'm more tempted to eat a second cookie for reasons not related to hunger), but doesn't have to do with why the cookie has more calories, which is what dykask was on about. The cookie has more calories and less sugar because it also includes flour and, especially, lots of butter.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Honestly, it sounds like you're conflating cravings for hyperpalatable foods (dessert) with real hunger. If I eat Cheez-Its, I crave more, even if I just had a filling meal.
^This...
No! I've dealt with the hunger for well over a decade. It has nothing to do with cravings. I didn't crave more ice cream or something else. My hunger want more real food. Hunger pains are not cravings. It is amazing to me that some people can't accept a simple fact. What makes you think you can understand the difference between hunger and cravings and I can't?
For me cutting way back on added sugar has greatly reduced my hunger between meals. Typically I don't eat until I'm completely full, so I'll feel like I could eat but don't need to. After 4 or maybe 5 hours normal type hunger starts. That is normal. What used to happen is within two hours of eating I would be feeling seriously hungry. That can't be normal but I sure many people experience it. That probably is why there is so much snacking. I no longer even have the desire to snack.
Once you've dieted down and then bulked and cut some you'll see what people are saying with this. Many of us have been through an adjustment period where we realized what we thought was hunger wasn't really hunger. It won't make sense until you experience it.
That is fine for you, but it isn't me. First my hunger is less than just when I maintaining. Second I know that adding sugar now causes the hunger to come back. I'm not claiming this would be the same for everyone, but it how it works for me.
You are not a special snowflake...
I'm not a snowflake at all. However I'm realizing there is a lot of fruitcake floating around here.
Perfect, resort to name calling. Way to further your hopeless argument...
Read a little ... the attacks on me are pretty nutty.
You are confusing an attack with correcting mis-information.
WHAT you did is working and that is great. Having said that, it is not working for the reasons you THINK it is. You have the HOW confused with the WHAT. It is clear to me that you are beyond reasoning with because you can't fight faith with facts...
You are the one that is ignoring facts and then making up stuff. How I started and where I am today are two different things. It is only added sugar that I'm cutting. Everything else is the same as what I successfully used before to drop close to 30 pounds. When I add sugar I end up being very hungry way too soon. Removing the extra sugar resolves that issue for me.
For some reason you can accept my statement. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and your are right. However I have the facts.
Do you understand that ice cream has more ingredients than just sugar? When you stop eating ice cream you are reducing more than just the sugar. You are reducing calories from sugar as well as fats. Any other desserts that you would cut out would be the same.
You also stopped putting sugar in your oatmeal, but replaced it with raisins. Raisins, like all dried fruits, have high concentrations of sugars. So you didn't really cut your sugar there...
Wrong! Stop assuming things. I have always put raisins in my oatmeal. I cut the sugar. I started with the ice cream but after that I just removed sugar. ONLY SUGAR
Why are so many so hell bent on defending sugar? It is really quite insane.
Because the spread of misinformation makes me twitchy.
If you're SO SURE it's the added sugar specifically (which is weird that you don't have problems with natural sugars from a low-fiber fruit like a banana, or other carbs) and not sugar+fat or sugar+salt or sugar+fat+salt, how about eating 2-3 tbsp of table sugar by itself in between meals and tell us how you feel? If you're suddenly hungry, I recommend writing in to endocrinologists and dieticians so they can study you. Maybe you're the solution to the world's obesity problems!
It isn't weird at all the fruit is okay and I don't know that I wouldn't do even better by cutting back on fruit, I simply haven't tried that. Sugar in fruit is going to be a lot slower getting into the blood stream that sugar added to food. A banana isn't a low fiber as you imply. A typical banana has 3 gram of fiber and one of those grams is soluble fiber which is 1/8 of the minimum soluble fiber one should get daily.
Last night I did look a the effects of cutting back on sugar and at least half the pages mentions reducing hunger. So what I'm describing isn't actually that uncommon.
I might be wrong here, but didn't someone say earlier that ice cream, a food with added sugar, has the similar impact as an apple, a food without added sugar but contains sugar?
ETA - yes, page 10. Stevencloser. I double checked. An apple has almost the same GI as a bowl of ice cream (I chose the option for the premium stuff)
I said ice cream, it wasn't a bowl of ice cream, I don't even know where to buy ice cream like that in Japan. It was typically ice cream bars. My favorite was similar to a Klondike bar, only a lot better chocolate.
Additionally you can't just go by GI, that only indicates per gram. It really doesn't make a difference if the GI is high but only tiny amounts are consumed. GL (glycemic load) is what you should be looking at, that indicates what the impact will be to blood sugar for a serving of something. Then you have to factor in how much of something is eaten. A serving of an apple is pretty large, a serving of ice cream is tiny.
And the glycemic load of an apple vs ice cream is the same, 6.
A serving of ice cream is a half a cup. I do not consider that tiny nor do I consider an apple a large serving.
A typical ice cream bar is 300 kc. That is about 2.5 servings. 2.5 apples takes a lot longer to eat.
There are a lot of reasonable icy treats in Japan, I just wasn't into them. My kids and wife prefer those. (Basically favored ice.)
A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That said, the calories in a serving of ice cream can vary. 300 calories of ice cream is not 2.5 servings...
You are just making things up as you go along. A lot of servings of ice cream are 120 kc. 300 kc / 120 kc = 2.5.
My favorite ice cream when I was in the states was 120 kc in the $1 single server containers ... I know this pretty well.
No, the standard serving size for ice cream is .5 cup, period. The calories range from around 200, on the low end, to over 300. For premium (what we are talking about), I'd assume more fat, so probably closer to 300.
Saying you cut dressing, ice cream, and nuts sure sounds like you are mostly cutting fat, to me. Like I said upthread, a primarily sugary dressing seems weird (and disgusting) to me.
You are doubling, counting 1 cup as a 1/2 cup. http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream
shows 267 calories in 1 cup.
There is also wide ranges in GI & GL even for the same type of fruit. I don't put much faith in that. For example search on apple: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
It just depends on the type of ice cream.
Edy's Slow Churned is usually 100-150 cals/serving
Talenti Gelato is 200-250 cals/serving
Ben and Jerrys usually 250-350 cals/serving
The whole debate is absurd. By calories the desert I liked the most in Japan was 300 kc. About 60g ice cream and the rest a rich chocolate covering. 300 kc is 2.5 good sized apples. By claiming higher calories it just means it would take more apples.
That is why fruit is probably safe, you have to eat a huge amount of it to get the same effect. Besides that there are a lot of claims around fruit in how it slows or prevents the absorption of fructose.
Anyway GI & GL are about glucose and not fructose. I think people keep confusing glucose (which is vital to our survival) and fructose which we really don't need and can only be metabolized in the liver.
No one cares about the specific ice cream dessert you had. You were talking about ice cream, period. Ice cream has a lower GL which is the amount of blood glucose increase it causes. As such it is a good indication of how fast it digests, since sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose, the fructose amount is the same as glucose.
Apples, btw. consist of 2/3 fructose, 85% of which is free fructose, the rest from the sucrose (evil table sugar!) in it.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
You are spreading misinformation. The metabolism of fructose and glucose are complete different. GI/GL is about glucose, it doesn't tell you anything about fructose. You can't assume they are identical.
Okay, if you have 50 grams of sugar, sucrose, which is made out of 25 grams of glucose and fructose, and it has to be split into glucose and fructose to be metabolized, and we know how fast the glucose of it hits the bloodstream...
what does the fructose do in that time?
The same.
First the main metabolic path for fructose is through the liver. The actual reactions that happen depend on the enzymes that are available and amount of fructose being handled. Best case is the fructose is converted to glyceraldehde-3-phosphate which can be use by glycolyisis to produce ATP. However when things go wrong with this complex pathway, weather there is a deficiency or just too much fructose being handle very low density lipids can be produced and multiple compounds that are harmful in the human body such as uric acid. In general not all fructose is converted to be consumed in the glucose pathway. This is why fructose itself has low GI/GL values.
When an apple is consumed there are multiple factors that slow down the rate fructose can hit the blood stream. Just two of these are the ample fiber another is polyphenols and phenolic acids both of which slow down the process. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564476 Contrary to popular opinion, fat is not a replacement for fiber in the digestive process. Fructose absorption is different than glucose absorption and there is some evidence that without enough glucose not all fructose can be absorbed. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/5/748S.short Fructose and glucose occur in different ratios in fruit as compared to sucrose. So in general we don't know how fast the fructose is absorbed without having detailed measurements. Most likely for the reasons presents fructose absortion from fruit is slower than frucotose absortion from added sugars. (sucose, HFCS, etc)
So in short when it comes to fructose an apple isn't equal to a serving of ice cream.
I've seen references that about 60 grams of fructose is the max that can be safely handled per day. However, it does appear there is a limit and it would seem likely that the limit will vary by person. When the limit is exceeded, then the undesirable fats and byproducts are likely produced. By just eating fruit, one will be hard press to get that much fructose, clearly possible but not easy. Added sugars though are probably easily add 40g or more of fructose, at least with a processed food diet.
My take on all this is that eating fruit is fine if one isn't also comsuming a lot of added sugar. Otherwise one is probably slowly damaging the liver and causing other problems. The good news is there is lot of evidence that chaning diet and reverse metabolic symdrome symptoms.
We aren't talking about an apple and ice cream being equal. We were talking about how fast the sugar in each is released into the blood stream. GL measuring that, including the effect fructose has.
They have the same effect of blood sugar.
Does all ice cream have fructose?
More of your ever changing arguments. I pointed out many problems with your comparison.
> Even in same databases there are multiple different GI/GL values for apples and ice cream. However one has to take the highest apple values to be close to the lowest ice cream values.
> GI/GL is measuring glucose in the blood stream and only indirectly measuring fructose. Fructose typically has low GI values compared to glucose because it is a complex process the liver has to go through before fructose can be used in the glucose metabolism.
> Totally non-sense comparison. I already pointed out in detail how the desert I cut out was really more like 2.5 apples. My favorite treat had a rich milk chocolate covering. The sugar in ice cream is bad enough, but the sugar in a rich milk chocolate is worse.
Deserts tend to be a lot more rich than whole fruit. It typically takes a lot of whole fruit to match a desert in calories.
That's because of fat, not sugar.
Again, one of my chocolate chip cookies has something like 180 calories (might be more, I'd have to check) and 14 g sugar. The largest source of calories is butter. A typical apple has 80 calories and 16 g of sugar.
Water content has a lot to do with it as well. I'd need to run the numbers, but something tells me that an apple has at least a factor of twenty more water weight than that cookie.
That might make the apple more filling than the cookie (I actually find the two about equally filling, although I'm more tempted to eat a second cookie for reasons not related to hunger), but doesn't have to do with why the cookie has more calories, which is what dykask was on about. The cookie has more calories and less sugar because it also includes flour and, especially, lots of butter.
Ahh, gotcha. I thought we were looking at them in a caloric density light (kcal/total edible weight). My mistake.0 -
The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?3 -
The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
Or, as I said before, we could just stop paying to try and "fix" people's poor dietary choices throughout life, but that belongs in the other thread. Between getting people as a whole to stop eating so much sugar (in any form), and what I just said, either one is about as likely as the other, unfortunately.
Now, allow me to put forth something anecdotal. A co-worker of mine in his mid-60s had been having trouble with his weight for about 15 years. He didn't finally acknowledge there was a problem until he was diagnosed T2D, and ended up having to take insulin pills to regulate his blood sugar levels. The culprit? Oranges. He was eating about five small oranges per day, while at work, under the impression that "fruit is good for weight loss" or some *kitten* he read somewhere. Mandarin oranges have a better fiber to sugar ratio than apples do, and it was still screwing him over. Once he stopped eating those altogether, he was off the insulin pills within two weeks. Upon further reduction of natural sugars and starches (in the form of tomatoes, potatoes and rice), and the resulting caloric deficit, he was out of the obese range within twelve weeks.
My point? Added sugars and natural sugars will screw you up just the same, assuming that you are overconsuming them. It's almost like the body doesn't give a damn where a macronutrient comes from, or something.
I don't doubt your story, I'm sure there are other cases that are similar. However that doesn't mean fruit is as bad as "sweeten beverages" which are really messing up people around the world, especially when it comes to metabolic issues like T2D. The problem with these things is it takes years to manifest. Anyway, most of the obese kids around the world aren't getting that way by eating too much fruit. At least with fruit you get stuff back that is actually good for you too. Also fruit fills you much longer than a soda will. That is the real problem with soda, calories without satisfying hunger.
Strangely enough I don't have real issues with diet drinks, not that there is a great deal of research at least on what the artificial sweetners actually do inside a body. For now I'm assuming that vastly lower amounts needed probably reduces any toxiticy to a non-issue and most of them just pass in urine if they make it to the bloodstream. (Head in the sand approach.) However since cutting back on added sugar I don't drink many diet drinks, I'm mostly just drinking water, straight teas and coffee. Mostly water because it tastes better now and water is the best thing to replaced sweat.
Anyway at least we can agree that too much sugar is a problem.
Seriously??? Aspartame is one of the most researched ingredients out there. We know what happens to it in the body and what the toxicity levels are. Other artificial sweeteners have been thoroughly studied as well. I seriously do not understand why you're in here "debating" when you're so lacking in research. Stop arguing with us for a while, switch from Google to Google Scholar so you can read peer-reviewed studies instead of fear-mongering articles, and come back when you've learned more about this topic and have more to go on than your n=1 experience.13 -
The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
As always, this comes back to dosage and context. I wasn't particularly sedentary as a kid - yeah, I watched a lot of TV, but I also played soccer and jumped on the trampoline and biked around my neighborhood and played with my dog. But I drank a LOT of soda. Like, 3-4 cans a day as an 8 year old. Then there was chocolate milk + cookies at school, Pop-Tarts for breakfast, graham crackers as snacks at home... I wasn't overweight, but I was a bit chunky. My dosage was too much for my activity and not properly balanced in a nutrient-dense diet. Activity is very important, but let's not downplay diet - kids who are consuming that much sugar are probably not being fed a particularly nutritious diet, and that's a problem.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions