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

stevencloser

Hornsby wrote: »

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...

And even in rats I'm having some serious doubts about the "significant weight gain even with equal calories" part. Especially when "significant gain" when applied to the scale of a rat could be something like 50 grams.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

Because it gets refined, it gives it pharmacological levels of effect, that's the difference in the sugars:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6

Schulte et al. [5] suggest that certain highly processed foods share pharmacokinetic properties (inasmuch as the term can be used for food), such as high potency and rapid absorption rate, with drugs of abuse. The authors report that such processed foods are strongly associated with self-reported addictive eating as measured by the YFAS. Their findings also demonstrate that fat content and glycaemic load (GL, grams of carbohydrate per serving) predict ratings of problematic foods, where processed foods high in fat and/or GL are self-reported as more problematic. In this study, highly processed foods were defined as those high in fat and refined carbohydrates (high GL) that may also contain low levels of fibre, protein, and water content. Schulte et al. [5] argue that processing of raw foods increases the foods’ ‘potency’, or the absorption of the potential ‘addictive agents’ (e.g. fat, sugar, salt) into the bloodstream, as indexed by spikes in blood glucose levels following consumption.

So again (reading the quotation vs. your paraphrase), FAT + sugar.

Yeah, we find them tasty. I think it's dumb to call that "addiction," but some feel differently. I also think the idea that "processed" foods are harder to resist than traditional sweet and savory combinations of fat and carbs (and salt) is usually one that suggests a lack of exposure to good cooking, but maybe that's just me. There's not one packaged cake/cookie/candy I'd have nearly as much trouble resisting as a really good homemade pie.

LazSommer

Tasty.

moochew1972

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

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...

And even in rats I'm having some serious doubts about the "significant weight gain even with equal calories" part. Especially when "significant gain" when applied to the scale of a rat could be something like 50 grams.

Exactly, if a rat with only its weak brain can have addiction overpower its body to gain little amounts of weight, think how much more a vast human brain can add to a human body with all the extra mind over matter.

But if you give the rat the option of food or on tap orgasm that rat will starve itself to death.....so sex beats sugar.

LazSommer

moochew1972 wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

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...

And even in rats I'm having some serious doubts about the "significant weight gain even with equal calories" part. Especially when "significant gain" when applied to the scale of a rat could be something like 50 grams.

Exactly, if a rat with only its weak brain can have addiction overpower its body to gain little amounts of weight, think how much more a vast human brain can add to a human body with all the extra mind over matter.

But if you give the rat the option of food or on tap orgasm that rat will starve itself to death.....so sex beats sugar.

So rats are smart.