Refined Sugar and Carbs...what are they exactly?

bemyyfriend0918

So I watched this documentary on Netflix about a month ago and it really got me thinking. The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are. I wanted to kind of see if this was true. So for two days in a row, I started my day with a breakfast within my calorie range that was high in refined sugar and carbs, to see if it made any difference....im not sure if it was a "placebo effect" or what, but let me tell you that by 12pm I was craving sugar/candy so bad I could cry. It totally destroyed my day. Then, the next day I went back to my normal breakfast of high protein and an apple (natural sugar)....and my cravings were nowhere near as bad. I was able to resist, and I did feel full much longer.

So with these findings, I really want to avoid refined sugar and carbs. I have a general idea of what this means, but I was hoping someone to clarify a little bit better for me. I know white breads, pastas, and anything made with unnatural sugar falls into the category....but how about starches? Anyone else avoid the refined stuff?

CorneliusPhoton

Sugar is not unnatural, but if you want to avoid it, just make sure that your carb sources are ones that have lots of fiber (you can track carbs and fiber instead of carbs and sugar -- that will help tell you which foods you may wish to avoid). I have found that eating both adequate protein and fat is also good for satiety. I sometimes make an almond meal pancake for breakfast and don't think about food for hours. Eating more protein and fat and making better carb choices is very helpful.

lemurcat12

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

kimny72

How about doing an experiment where you just eat a moderate amount of "refined" sugar and carbs? Documentaries, books, and blogs that are trying to catch your attention always suggest it's all or nothing. Either you eat sugary cereal with a piece of white bread toast and a big glass of orange juice, or you cut out sugar entirely. What was probably missing from your experiment breakfast was fiber, protein, and/or fat, and what was missing caused the problem, not what was there. I find any meal that is almost entirely one macro is unsatisfying.

"Processed" or "natural" sugar are chemically the same thing.

I eat plenty of nutritious whole foods, but I still eat bread, pasta, Twizzlers, etc when I want to. I don't consider myself addicted, I just like those foods sometimes. I think people who feel controlled by sugar eat way too much and often eat lots of snacks/meals that are JUST sugar. I eat pasta all the time, but I eat it with veggies and protein. I find that very filling. I eat ice cream regularly - sugar, but fat too so it satisfies me. Bread with PB on it combines carbs, fat, protein - very filling!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

A lot of people will tell you that sugar can't be addictive because they're fine handling it. Well there are people that spontaneously get over taking heroin too. The important thing is you did your own experiment, which means you know how it makes you feel. You'll be better off cutting out all the unnatural stuff that didn't exist in humans' evolutionary past like sugar.

Shakes head vigorously.

bemyyfriend0918

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

cityruss

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

A high school level biology book begs to differ.

cwolfman13

Refined sugar is just sugar that has been extracted from the cane or other source...i.e. beets, etc. It's natural.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

CorneliusPhoton

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Are you talking about calories or nutrition?

*bracing for impact*

lemurcat12

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

Unknown

This content has been removed.

CorneliusPhoton

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

People who eat fruit might also tend to eat other healthy foods.

cityruss

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

If you consume both is it evened out?

What happens if you eat a blueberry donut?

cwolfman13

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

Maybe the person who drinks a ton of soda has a bunch of other crappy dietary habits to go along with it whereas the person eating fruit on a regular basis has a relatively solid diet overall.

lemurcat12

Correlation is not causation (correct for all other differences and then talk to me). Also, I would agree that fruit is healthier than soda: fruit has a lot more fiber and micronutrients than soda (which has basically none), and also those who overconsume soda tend to overconsume it by a lot (plain sugar, no fiber, liquid form, most people who overdo it probably don't even think of it as food to take notice of). I'd advise people trying to improve their diets/lose weight to consider cutting out or way down on sugary soda if they drink any significant amount of it and to add in fruits and veg (although fruit is more optional IMO than veg), but not because the sugar in fruit is meaningfully different than the sugar in soda. Sugar itself provides nothing but taste and calories (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cityruss

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

cityruss wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

If you consume both is it evened out?

What happens if you eat a blueberry donut?

You'd risk total protonic inversion. Imagine all matter in the universe suddenly stopping but also accelerating to the speed of light at the same time.

I'm off to the shop to test this out.

TR0berts

CorneliusPhoton wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Are you talking about calories or nutrition?

*bracing for impact*

Please, don't feed the troll.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

BillMcKay1

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Of course they are different, Donuts and snickers also have calories from fat. 100 grams of donuts will have way more calories (388 for a krispy kreme) than 100g of blueberries (57 calories) due to the added fat content.

But if you eat 100 calories of donuts or 100 calories of blueberries, as far as the energy equation and its relation to weight loss or gain , there is no difference.

bemyyfriend0918

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Of course they are different, Donuts and snickers also have calories from fat. 100 grams of donuts will have way more calories (388 for a krispy kreme) than 100g of blueberries (57 calories) due to the added fat content.

But if you eat 100 calories of donuts or 100 calories of blueberries, as far as the energy equation and its relation to weight loss or gain , there is no difference.

I'm not talking about energy in vs energy out. I know 100 calories is 100 calories. I am talking about it triggering cravings/keeping you full.

Need2Exerc1se

Refined sugar is generally talking about table sugar (that white or brown crystalized substance we add to coffee or tea and make cookies with) and sometimes includes syrups and most honey (excludes raw honey).

Refined carbs usually means ground grains - flour and products made from flour, instant cook hot cereals. Grains with the germ and bran removed.

I don't avoid these things but I do limit them, meaning I don't make them a significant source of calories in my diet.

lemurcat12

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Of course they are different, Donuts and snickers also have calories from fat. 100 grams of donuts will have way more calories (388 for a krispy kreme) than 100g of blueberries (57 calories) due to the added fat content.

But if you eat 100 calories of donuts or 100 calories of blueberries, as far as the energy equation and its relation to weight loss or gain , there is no difference.

I'm not talking about energy in vs energy out. I know 100 calories is 100 calories. I am talking about it triggering cravings/keeping you full.

Here's a comparison:

Apple (1 medium): 80 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g protein, 22 g carbs, 16 g sugar, 5 g fiber
Chocolate chip cookie (recipe of mine): 206 calories, 14 g fat, 2 g protein, 22 g carbs, 14 g sugar, 0 g fiber

For me (not everyone), the apple will be more filling, and I think it is on average a better choice because it has more micros for the calories (especially if one is trying to lose weight). There would be exceptions: are you wanting a cooking or saving room for it? Is fat satiating to you? Are you tired of apples after eating a bunch in recent days? Stuff like that.

I wouldn't have "cravings" as a result of the cookie and how filling it is hardly matters, as I wouldn't eat it as a meal or snack if I was concerned about hunger. I'd most likely eat it after a filling meal as a dessert type food or, maybe, as a special treat if someone baked them for me or as a "why not" after a long run or bike ride.

However, if you did have cravings/hunger after the cookie and not the apple, it's not because the sugar is different. It's not meaningfully different -- to your body (which breaks down sucrose easily) it's fructose and glucose, mostly. The important differences is that the cookie is typically considered highly palatable (due to the particular combination of ingredients, especially carbs+fat, also vanilla, a bit of salt, etc.), the cookie has a lot more calories (in this case much more from fat (largely butter) than sugar, which it has less of than the apple), and the apple has more fiber and water and overall volume.

The idea that the sugar in the cookie has some major effect that that in the apple does not have makes no sense. The foods are different, but it has nothing to do with the sugar.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cee134

Sugary foods can be as physiologically addictive as many drugs.

We are not genetically designed to consume the amount of sugar that we are currently eating. For that reason, our brains get that ‘happy feeling’ from sugar and it can override the “I’ve had enough” mechanism.

Unfortunately, it turns out that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), despite being molecularly similar to regular sugar, does not affect the body the same way as table sugar. A recent study conducted by Princeton University concluded:

Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.

https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/06/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sugar/

Unknown

This content has been removed.

stevencloser

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

cityruss wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

If you consume both is it evened out?

What happens if you eat a blueberry donut?

You'd risk total protonic inversion. Imagine all matter in the universe suddenly stopping but also accelerating to the speed of light at the same time.

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas, boiling! 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from their graves! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria.

Hornsby

cee134 wrote: »

Sugary foods can be as physiologically addictive as many drugs.

We are not genetically designed to consume the amount of sugar that we are currently eating. For that reason, our brains get that ‘happy feeling’ from sugar and it can override the “I’ve had enough” mechanism.

Unfortunately, it turns out that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), despite being molecularly similar to regular sugar, does not affect the body the same way as table sugar. A recent study conducted by Princeton University concluded:

Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.

https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/06/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sugar/

In rats...

elphie754

stevencloser wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

cityruss wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

If you consume both is it evened out?

What happens if you eat a blueberry donut?

You'd risk total protonic inversion. Imagine all matter in the universe suddenly stopping but also accelerating to the speed of light at the same time.

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas, boiling! 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from their graves! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria.

So we shouldn't cross the streams?