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
-
Sugar is sugar, whether it's in fruit or not.
If you have a specific medical problem with sugar, follow your doctor's recommendations about sugar consumption.
If you don't have a specific medical problem with sugar, moderate your intake of sugar just like you moderate other things that you eat.
Eat the amount of fruit that fits your nutritional goals. Not too much, not too little. It's up to you to decide what's "too much" or "too little" within your goals and the government's nutritional suggestions.
this sums it up well ..
sugar = sugar ..
2 -
mayoosh_primrose wrote: »I've read several articles about this topic because I eat so much fruit. I came to the conclusion that it's ok to eat as much as you want -unless you have diabetes.
Fruit has fiber and other nutrients that make them really healthy, unlike white sugar and refined carbs.
what if I get my nutrient sources from other places AND eat white sugar? And who thinks they are going to get adequate nutrition from just sugar...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I was just diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I realized, as I have to test my blood sugars now; that fruit can be bothersome to blood sugar. Yet, not all fruits have the same sugar content. Pineapple and Watermelon make my blood sugars rise but strawberries don't unless I eat a huge amount. Yet, fruit has a lot of vitamins and minerals. Thus, now I only allow myself two fruits a day and divide it up during the day so I am not getting all that sugar at one time. Sugar is toxic. It is only meant to be used sparingly. I really watch carbs and sugars, but eat real fats at every meal. Fat does not cause heart disease. It is the excess sugars we have in all of our foods.
Sugar is not toxic.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I was just diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I realized, as I have to test my blood sugars now; that fruit can be bothersome to blood sugar. Yet, not all fruits have the same sugar content. Pineapple and Watermelon make my blood sugars rise but strawberries don't unless I eat a huge amount. Yet, fruit has a lot of vitamins and minerals. Thus, now I only allow myself two fruits a day and divide it up during the day so I am not getting all that sugar at one time. Sugar is toxic. It is only meant to be used sparingly. I really watch carbs and sugars, but eat real fats at every meal. Fat does not cause heart disease. It is the excess sugars we have in all of our foods.
Sugar is not toxic.
There is more and more research showing that too much sugar is toxic. Almost everything can be toxic, it depends on how much and how fast one is exposed to it.
One of the toxic effects of too much sugar: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/
if you drink too much water you will die...so is water toxic too?4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I was just diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I realized, as I have to test my blood sugars now; that fruit can be bothersome to blood sugar. Yet, not all fruits have the same sugar content. Pineapple and Watermelon make my blood sugars rise but strawberries don't unless I eat a huge amount. Yet, fruit has a lot of vitamins and minerals. Thus, now I only allow myself two fruits a day and divide it up during the day so I am not getting all that sugar at one time. Sugar is toxic. It is only meant to be used sparingly. I really watch carbs and sugars, but eat real fats at every meal. Fat does not cause heart disease. It is the excess sugars we have in all of our foods.
Sugar is not toxic.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I was just diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I realized, as I have to test my blood sugars now; that fruit can be bothersome to blood sugar. Yet, not all fruits have the same sugar content. Pineapple and Watermelon make my blood sugars rise but strawberries don't unless I eat a huge amount. Yet, fruit has a lot of vitamins and minerals. Thus, now I only allow myself two fruits a day and divide it up during the day so I am not getting all that sugar at one time. Sugar is toxic. It is only meant to be used sparingly. I really watch carbs and sugars, but eat real fats at every meal. Fat does not cause heart disease. It is the excess sugars we have in all of our foods.
Sugar is not toxic.
There is more and more research showing that too much sugar is toxic. Almost everything can be toxic, it depends on how much and how fast one is exposed to it.
One of the toxic effects of too much sugar: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/
I didn't see where it mentions sugar there?
Type 2 diabetes is largely a problem of insulin resistance and there is evidence linking added sugar consumption to the development of type 2 diabetes. At the same time it appears that the consumption of fruit is safe even though the fruit is often high in fructose. It seems likely the main problem is added sugar in drinks and juices which cause much higher levels of fructose in the blood and finally the liver. The fiber in whole fruit slows the absorption of the sugar in fruit.
While the toxicity of sugar is hotly debated, it is looking more and more like what went on with tobacco. Sugar can't be avoided completely but added sugar can be largely avoided.
Some articles that talk about sugar and evidence. (There are many, many more)
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all From 1975!
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=0
Diabetes.org itself says quite clearly that sugar alone is not a risk factor for getting diabetes. Being fat and having bad luck are though.
And seriously? "Global healing center" which is in quackwatch's list of questionable organizations http://quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html and sells homeopathic crap that detoxes your wallet of dangerous money, "eating academy" which advertises itself with the red flag slogan "forget everything you know about nutrition", and a nytimes article.
from: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
"Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes. - See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=superfooter#sthash.dqFvs1cH.dpuf"
Yup, quite clearly ... I guess you are hanging on the word "alone". Well it also turns out that too much sugar also makes you fat and can cause very bad luck when you go to the dentist.
As for the rest, there is not shortage of places warning about added sugars. I'm pretty sure the New York Times is pushing the homeopathic crap you are worried about.
The average added sugar consumption in the US is greater than 80 grams a day. That is 29.2 kg / year ( > 64 lbs / year). Don't you think that is just a tad bit excessive?
too much of any calories or macro makes you fat ....2 -
@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.4 -
I personally find fruit high calorie, high sugar, and not filling. I might add 70g to a shake once in awhile but otherwise I'm fruitless.0
-
@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »I love chocolate covered raisins!
I like you.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
Wow.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
Do you feed your kids juice alone without any food? Just like, plant a bottle of juice in front of them and let them figure it out? No? Then what is your problem?5 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
Do you feed your kids juice alone without any food? Just like, plant a bottle of juice in front of them and let them figure it out? No? Then what is your problem?
I take it you have no experience with kids.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
Do you feed your kids juice alone without any food? Just like, plant a bottle of juice in front of them and let them figure it out? No? Then what is your problem?
I take it you have no experience with kids.
The food your kids eat probably balances out the "evilness" of the sugar in the fruit juice. You can get fibre from other sources. It doesn't have to be with the fruit juice in order to "negate" the sugar.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
Do you feed your kids juice alone without any food? Just like, plant a bottle of juice in front of them and let them figure it out? No? Then what is your problem?
I take it you have no experience with kids.
The food your kids eat probably balances out the "evilness" of the sugar in the fruit juice. You can get fibre from other sources. It doesn't have to be with the fruit juice in order to "negate" the sugar.
When my kids were little there were many times they managed to just get juice. That is actually really common with kids, but it was less of a problem in Japan than the states. Green tea is just as common in Japan for kids as juice and that is normally unsweetened. In the states it is hard to believe how many times kids are given sweeten drinks.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
so your kids are on a 100% juice intake?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
so your kids are on a 100% juice intake?
Are you trying to be a clown?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
so your kids are on a 100% juice intake?
Are you trying to be a clown?
I only see one clown in this thread..
If you don't feed your kids 100% juice and they are eating sugar in moderation with other fruits and vegetables then there is no need to fear monger about sugar...7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
so your kids are on a 100% juice intake?
Are you trying to be a clown?
I only see one clown in this thread..
If you don't feed your kids 100% juice and they are eating sugar in moderation with other fruits and vegetables then there is no need to fear monger about sugar...
I agree 100%
When things are eaten or drank in moderation( sans any medical issues) then there's no problem.
I drink juice every day as Having 4 ounces of juice with a well balanced meal shouldn't really be a big deal. ( I have no medical issues)
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
I'm with you on limiting children's access to juice. I think sweet drinks should be a "sometimes" food for kids, saved for special occasions. That said, just because kids love juice doesn't mean it's a problem with the juice. You could say that about anything! "There's one big problem with recommending more protein in a diet: people with kidney problems!"
You know your kids have a fondness for juice that makes them sneak it behind your back? That's an issue to address as a parent, not one that's going to bolster an anti-sugar POV on a diet and nutrition forum.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@ndj1979 you are pushing nonsense to some extent. There is a huge difference between getting fructose from drinking juice or getting it from eating the fruit. The fructose in juice is much more concentrated and will hit the blood and be dumped in the liver at a much higher rate and fructose absorbed by eating fruit.
There are not plenty of studies linking sugary drinks with metabolic problems. Toxicity is often depended on dosage. So while sugar is sugar, dumping 65g of sugar into your blood via a drink isn't the same as getting that same amount of sugar by eating enough fruit. The fiber in fruit tends to gum things up and slow the process down.
This assumes (1) that it is always bad for something to be a quickly digested/fast carb; and (2) that you consume juice alone. With respect to (1), it only really matters if you have blood sugar/IR issues, and can be a positive if you are refueling during/after exercise. I like to eat a banana before or after a run, sometimes, and bananas are pretty low fiber, so same idea. With respect to (2), I actually think most people drink juice with other food. I rarely drink calories, including juice, but every once in a while I'll have a small glass of juice (nowhere near 65 g, which would require something like 3 cups) with breakfast. The things I eat along with it slow down absorption, just like the fiber in fruit. That's why rules that overgeneralize (juice always has X, Y, Z effects and that's bad) are not useful and tend to miss the bigger picture.
Well there is a big problem with your juice theory, kids. It is common to let kids have juice, I used to do it too. I'm seriously considering getting DEXA scans for my kids. Probably won't they are thin as rails and we've cut way back on juice. Still it is scary.
Do you feed your kids juice alone without any food? Just like, plant a bottle of juice in front of them and let them figure it out? No? Then what is your problem?
I take it you have no experience with kids.
The food your kids eat probably balances out the "evilness" of the sugar in the fruit juice. You can get fibre from other sources. It doesn't have to be with the fruit juice in order to "negate" the sugar.
When my kids were little there were many times they managed to just get juice. That is actually really common with kids, but it was less of a problem in Japan than the states. Green tea is just as common in Japan for kids as juice and that is normally unsweetened. In the states it is hard to believe how many times kids are given sweeten drinks.
So you believe the sugar in juice overrides the food your kids have eaten; that all the nutrients in that plate of food is completely gone because your kids drank some apple juice with it?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions