WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'

snikkins

this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.

People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.

Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.

We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).

Just food for thought

The problems with the "tax it" idea is 1) In the US (I know you said you're in the UK, but this stuff has appeared here as well), people hate taxes and it's basically legislative suicide to propose new ones. Yes, this even applies to states like California, where I live, which is arguably "liberal." People still hate taxes. 2) I'm not sure Pigovian taxes are all that effective.

FatFreeFrolicking

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

ksuh999

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

Is that fructose that's thinking very hard?

Chemically, there is no difference.

AJ_G

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

FatFreeFrolicking

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.

happysummerrunner

Correlation is not causation

Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

double-blind randomized controlled trial... but then it's still "evidence suggests"

LTKeegan

Correlation is not causation

Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.

Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.

If you set up your study design right to begin with, with a large and diverse enough sample and have proper knowledge of statistics, you only need 1 study. You can say with 99.99% certainty, that x CAUSES y. Though usually we settle for 95% certainty.

If you would like further explanation of sample design and statistics, you can PM me.

My credentials are 4th year PhD candidate in Mathematical Biology.

happysummerrunner

Correlation is not causation

Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.

Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.

If you have a meta-analysis of a large number of randomized controlled trials then you have pretty convincing evidence. Far more suggestive than a correlation study. (These cost a lot more than correlation studies- which is why they aren't done as much.)

Natmarie73

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

Finally! Someone who has bothered to read and learn about a topic before posting. Kudos.

Thisiswhatido

In my case (fructose intolerance or w/e name you want to use for it,) I had to lower my sugar intake dramatically. I'm feeling great now. However, I eat lots of basmati rice, so I think there may be an association with carbs and sugars... so many different types. I also don't do well with lactose.

cwolfman13

Meh...I eat a well balanced diet that is nutritionally dense and I rock my fitness...and I eat a little sugar...I eat fruit...I eat jelly beans on occasion...I really like gummy bears...so really,



I even put a Tsp of brown sugar in my oats every morning...I know, I know...



And don't even get me started on my recovery smoothies after a nice long endurance ride...

[img][/img]

AJ_G

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.

What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.

Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite

zyxst

My favorite sentence is this:

The suggested limits apply to all sugars added to food, as well as sugar naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates.

Is my comprehension off, or couldn't that be summed down to "Don't eat sugar and food with sugar in it"?

FatFreeFrolicking

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.

What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.

Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite

Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.

FredDoyle

In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

This is a very good synopsis.

mam479

Correlation is not causation

Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.

Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.

If you set up your study design right to begin with, with a large and diverse enough sample and have proper knowledge of statistics, you only need 1 study. You can say with 99.99% certainty, that x CAUSES y. Though usually we settle for 95% certainty.

If you would like further explanation of sample design and statistics, you can PM me.

My credentials are 4th year PhD candidate in Mathematical Biology.

As a PhD candidate in Epidemiology I would definitely disagree that you only need one study. Even if you somehow got the money to do such a study, it still wouldn't imply causation because it is one study.

As for causation:
The Bradford-Hill Causation Criteria is most commonly used to infer causation
1. Strength of the association.
According to Hill, the stronger the association between a risk factor and outcome, the more likely the relationship is to be causal.

2. Consistency of findings.
Have the same findings must be observed among different populations, in different study designs and different times?

3. Specificity of the association.
There must be a one to one relationship between cause and outcome.

4. Temporal sequence of association.
Exposure must precede outcome.

5. Biological gradient.
Change in disease rates should follow from corresponding changes in exposure (dose-response).

6. Biological plausibility.
Presence of a potential biological mechanism.

7. Coherence.
Does the relationship agree with the current knowledge of the natural history/biology of the disease?

8. Experiment.
Does the removal of the exposure alter the frequency of the outcome?

AJ_G

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.

What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.

Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite

Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.

Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...

Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.

knra_grl

Sugar is not the cause of obesity and cavities - these are caused by excessive eating, laziness and poor oral hygiene habits

simply put without debate :flowerforyou:

FatFreeFrolicking

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.

What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.

Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite

Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.

Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...

Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.

It all depends on the fruit.

Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.

AJ_G

I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.

And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?

I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.

What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.

Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite

Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.

Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...

Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.

It all depends on the fruit.

Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.

It's from over consuming calories in general and becoming obese. Obesity for the most part causes type 2 diabetes, results in insulin resistance, and therefore carbs and sugars must be carefully monitored once you become diabetic. It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.