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
Options
Replies
-
3dogsrunning 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.
Again, this side debate was not about YOU and what YOU like. It was about the fact you claimed FOOD with added sugar will enter the bloodstream faster than FOOD that doesn't. That is incorrect. The ice cream/Apple was one example. I used it because someone else had already mentioned it and it was convenient.
Clearly it was a mistake because you had mentioned ice cream as one of the things you cut and apparently can separate the point.
If I wasn't on mobile I might be bother to go get another example of a food that is not ice cream that has added sugar that has a lower GL than a food without added sugar. But, TBH, I doubt it would be worth the effort.
Again the issue isn't glucose. GI/GL is about glucose, not fructose. GI/GL tells you nothing about fructose as it isn't even measured. Claiming it does is just more mis-information. There is a lot theorys and research that seem to support that fruit actually interferes with the absorption of fructose. I could easily post a series of links but someone would blow a gasket again over that.
What?
And first you said3dogsrunning 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.
Now I am not supposed to look at GL?4 -
This has been a super amusing read.5
-
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.0 -
Endurance athletes commonly take on 30g of fructose an hour - for multiple hours.I've seen references that about 60 grams of fructose is the max that can be safely handled per day.
Context.....
2 -
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".1
-
Of all the people to pull as an example, but Freelee would be fat as *snorlax* if any of what you just said were accurate.3
-
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.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.
Really? I used to eat two fairly large Granny Smiths as part of my breakfast years ago. It was two apples and two hard-boiled eggs most mornings, and that was just the one meal, and I was set at 1400 kcal/day at the time. Three or four seems ridiculously easy, assuming that fruit were ever part of my dietary intake anymore.2 -
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...4 -
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...
Yea, that didn't sound right.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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.
Really? I used to eat two fairly large Granny Smiths as part of my breakfast years ago. It was two apples and two hard-boiled eggs most mornings, and that was just the one meal, and I was set at 1400 kcal/day at the time. Three or four seems ridiculously easy, assuming that fruit were ever part of my dietary intake anymore.
Right! My four year old was on an apple kick recently - she could easily eat three or four a day, down to the damn core.... Kids... Smh.
2 -
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.1 -
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
-
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?
2 -
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.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.
Not all food that has added sugar is garbage. There are lots of foods with lots of nutritional value that might have added sugar.
Yes, food with a lot of added sugar tends to be the same kind of food that is lower in nutrients. But that does not mean all food with added sugar is.
It is not either or.4 -
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?0 -
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?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 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.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.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions