WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

SunofaBeach14

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

I love how people don't challenge "accepted wisdom" and then accuse others who disagree of lacking a brain. It's amusing, almost adorable, and completely irrational

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

RushBabe_214

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

I love how people don't challenge "accepted wisdom" and then accuse others who disagree of lacking a brain. It's amusing, almost adorable, and completely irrational

Mr. Cranky *kitten*...







:flowerforyou:

SunofaBeach14

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

I love how people don't challenge "accepted wisdom" and then accuse others who disagree of lacking a brain. It's amusing, almost adorable, and completely irrational

Mr. Cranky *kitten*...







:flowerforyou:

:blushing:

ndj1979

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

LOL so anyone who disagrees with you lacks a brain? interesting position ….so you would say that fruit sugar is healthier then added sugar; hence, fruits sugar is good and added sugar is bad, in your opinion?

Additionally, some fruits contain more sugar then some services of ice cream or candy bars…so in those instances is fruit sugar still better?

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

ndj1979

an apple has 19 grams of sugar..one Milano dark chocolate cooke has 20 grams…which is better?

ndj1979

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...

SunofaBeach14

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

I'm sure the doctors are going absolutely insane trying to communicate with you if you're pestering them for hours. Sorry, babe, but get an education then come back and and try discuss topics like this intelligently.

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...

The facts I've stated here regarding sucrose, fructose, and glucose are completely 100% accurate. So don't try to belittle my education.

The only thing that is incorrect in your opinion is my own opinion of whether or not sugar found in fruit is better than added sugar. You just can't stand the fact that I have a different opinion than you do.

ndj1979

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...

The facts I've stated here regarding sucrose, fructose, and glucose are completely 100% accurate. So don't try to belittle my education.

The only thing that is incorrect in your opinion is my own opinion of whether or not sugar found in fruit is better than added sugar. You just can't stand the fact that I have a different opinion than you do.

still here I see..usually when someone says goodnight, that implies that one is leaving…but lets continue…


for the record, you are the one that said anyone who disagrees with you "lacks a brain"…

and you made a statement about glucose affecting your body negatively and tried to tie it into fruit sugar being more healthy, when in fact fruit sugar contains both fructose and glucose….at that point your argument caved in on itself..

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way

SunofaBeach14

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way

Some people study their way through school, others sleep their way through school. It happens

RushBabe_214

an apple has 19 grams of sugar..one Milano dark chocolate cooke has 20 grams…which is better?

In for the Milano cookies!

AJ_G

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...

The facts I've stated here regarding sucrose, fructose, and glucose are completely 100% accurate. So don't try to belittle my education.

The only thing that is incorrect in your opinion is my own opinion of whether or not sugar found in fruit is better than added sugar. You just can't stand the fact that I have a different opinion than you do.

Sugar found in fruit being better than added sugar is not an opinion...you're just factually wrong...

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.

so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...

No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.

The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.

ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?

Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.

You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.

Have a great night! :flowerforyou:

You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way

My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.

Galatea_Stone

I never did like The Who . . .

Does Roger Daltrey have a sugar problem? Is it just him or does the entire band need to cut their sugar intakes by half?

I don't think Pete Townsend is going to go for this.

ndj1979

You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way

My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.

one person agreed with you ….

SunofaBeach14

You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way

My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.

one person agreed with you ….

I blame the media for the sugar confusion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/