Carbs and sugar?

J72FIT

I always go over on my alotted numbers for carbs and sugar but thats because I eat alot of fruit. Is it still bad to go over or since it's from fruit is it ok? Does the body digest "natural" surgar and carbs better or is ther no such thing as "natural" sugars and carbs?

This an interesting editorial from Harvard Health... might help explain for you and everyone else how excess fructose is converted to fat.

Is fructose bad for you?
Patrick J. Skerrett, Executive Editor, Harvard Health

One of many controversies mixing up the field of nutrition is whether the use of high-fructose corn syrup in soft drinks and other foods is causing the paired epidemics of obesity and diabetes that are sweeping the United States and the world. I’ve ignored this debate because it never made sense to me—high-fructose corn syrup is virtually identical to the refined sugar it replaces. A presentation I heard yesterday warns that the real villain may be fructose—a form of sugar found in fruits, vegetables, and honey. It may not matter whether it’s in high-fructose corn syrup, refined sugar, or any other sweetener.

Sounding the alarm is Dr. Robert H. Lustig, a professor of pediatrics and an obesity specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. He is a key figure in a recent New York Times article called “Is Sugar Toxic?” Here’s some background and the gist of the presentation Lustig gave as part of a weekly seminar sponsored by Harvard School of Public Health’s Department of Nutrition. (You can watch Lustig’s entire talk or a view a similar version on YouTube.)

When fructose is joined to glucose, it makes sucrose. Sucrose is abundant in sugar cane, sugar beets, corn, and other plants. When extracted and refined, sucrose makes table sugar. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the average American took in about 15 grams of fructose (about half an ounce), mostly from eating fruits and vegetables. Today we average 55 grams per day (73 grams for adolescents). The increase in fructose intake is worrisome, says Lustig, because it suspiciously parallels increases in obesity, diabetes, and a new condition called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease that now affects up to one-third of Americans. (You can read more about nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a Harvard Health Letter article.)

Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.

None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the “fat is bad” mantra prompted a big shift in the American diet. People and food companies replaced fat, often healthy fat, with sugar, almost always refined sugar. But this sort of low-fat diet—one rich in refined sugar and thus in fructose—is really a high-fat diet when you look at what the liver does to fructose, said Dr. Lustig.

Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them. There are plenty of reasons to avoid sugary drinks and foods with added sugar, like empty calories, weight gain, and blood sugar swings. Lustig offers another.

Every year I attend scores of talks on health and nutrition. Few prompt me to change what I do or what I eat. Lustig’s talk has me looking at the amount of sugar I take in, and thinking hard about sugar in my children’s diets.

reference: file:///Users/joannemoniz/Desktop/Is%20fructose%20bad%20for%20you%3F%20-%20Harvard%20Health%20Blog%20-%20Harvard%20Health%20Publications.webarchive


JOANNE MONIZ
THE SKINNY ON OBESITY GROUP

Just more scaremongering on your part. Repeating the same bs that Lustig spews.

I'd be interested to see how knowledgeable you are if you would start addressing some of the actual science that has been discussed or defend your claims, without copying and posting the same nonsense over and over. The only people you acknowledge are the ones who buy into this sugar crusade you are on.

You are providing this board with no actual knowledge. Just copies of articles. A smart man Alan Aragon (who destroyed your Prince Lustig in a video you have yet to acknowledge), speak to someone long enough and you can tell if they actually know what they are talking about and understand it or are they simply repeating what they heard. I reckon you're the latter.

She's like a dog that peed on the floor. You grab her by the nose and say, "look what you did!". But like every dog does, she just stares off into space so not to acknowledge the "situation".

She will continue to ignore all who rebut her in an attempt to spew her garbage in the hopes of finding a few more unfortunately mis-informed people to drag into her group.

sjohnny

Sugar from fruit is amazing!!! packet with vitamins, minerals, water, energy... as long as is from fruit is 100% ok, I always go over because i eat a lot of fruit

What is i get sugar from fruit, vegetables and some ice cream daily but remain in a deficit?

Depends.


Do you believe in magic?

The magic's in the music and the music's in me.

LadyBoss_1989

I have hypothyroid hashimotos and I MAY be insulin resistant ( I crave sugar throughout the day and i feel very tired and terrible when I don't get it but instantly better when I do) Well, I cut back on my sugar almost completely, besides having fruit like once a week and my protein shake contains one gram of sugar, which i drink almost every day. Is this ok, or do I need to cut out sugar COMPLETELY?

sjohnny

I have hypothyroid hashimotos and I MAY be insulin resistant ( I crave sugar throughout the day and i feel very tired and terrible when I don't get it but instantly better when I do) Well, I cut back on my sugar almost completely, besides having fruit like once a week and my protein shake contains one gram of sugar, which i drink almost every day. Is this ok, or do I need to cut out sugar COMPLETELY?

Since you have a medical condition there may be differences in how you react to various things. That's not the case for most people. And most people are what all of this is referencing.

Your questions would be better addressed by a doctor than a bunch of random *kitten* on the internet.

tennisdude2004

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

Why wouldn't you apply it to a 24 hour day? How would fat burning be zero, when fat burning is a constant, 24/7 process? What would net fat oxidation be after 24 hours in a deficit? Are you trying to say that storage would exceed oxidation? Or are you intentionally ignoring the fact that fat oxidation is occurring to try and skew your answer? To go even further, what would happen in that 4 hour period after eating 1000 calories of pure fat? Hint, it would also be stored as body fat, just like the sugar.

We talk in 24 hour periods because that's what matters. The human body is constantly storing and oxidizing fat. What matters is the overall net storage or oxidation over time, not what happens in a 2 or 3 hour period.

Because it's easier to try to prove a point using extreme examples. It's also amusing how the a certain someone in the thread that didn't grasp biology, was asked questions, he ignored them all, then thanks someone with an extreme example.

I'm still waiting for you are tigers world to actually answer the question.

You both claim that none of that glucose will be converted to fat stores, are you then saying that the glucose will stay in the blood stream until burnt as fuel - if that's how you claim biology works then I certainly don't grasp your version of biology!

J72FIT

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

Why wouldn't you apply it to a 24 hour day? How would fat burning be zero, when fat burning is a constant, 24/7 process? What would net fat oxidation be after 24 hours in a deficit? Are you trying to say that storage would exceed oxidation? Or are you intentionally ignoring the fact that fat oxidation is occurring to try and skew your answer? To go even further, what would happen in that 4 hour period after eating 1000 calories of pure fat? Hint, it would also be stored as body fat, just like the sugar.

We talk in 24 hour periods because that's what matters. The human body is constantly storing and oxidizing fat. What matters is the overall net storage or oxidation over time, not what happens in a 2 or 3 hour period.

Because it's easier to try to prove a point using extreme examples. It's also amusing how the a certain someone in the thread that didn't grasp biology, was asked questions, he ignored them all, then thanks someone with an extreme example.

I'm still waiting for you are tigers world to actually answer the question.

You both claim that none of that glucose will be converted to fat stores, are you then saying that the glucose will stay in the blood stream until burnt as fuel - if that's how you claim biology works then I certainly don't grasp your version of biology!

I don't believe that is what either of them said. I think they said it would get stored as fat and then released later in the day... or day to follow. Which is what I think the body does naturally. Store a little but when you are fed and burn a little bit when you are fasted.

tennisdude2004

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

Why wouldn't you apply it to a 24 hour day? How would fat burning be zero, when fat burning is a constant, 24/7 process? What would net fat oxidation be after 24 hours in a deficit? Are you trying to say that storage would exceed oxidation? Or are you intentionally ignoring the fact that fat oxidation is occurring to try and skew your answer? To go even further, what would happen in that 4 hour period after eating 1000 calories of pure fat? Hint, it would also be stored as body fat, just like the sugar.

We talk in 24 hour periods because that's what matters. The human body is constantly storing and oxidizing fat. What matters is the overall net storage or oxidation over time, not what happens in a 2 or 3 hour period.

Because it's easier to try to prove a point using extreme examples. It's also amusing how the a certain someone in the thread that didn't grasp biology, was asked questions, he ignored them all, then thanks someone with an extreme example.

I'm still waiting for you are tigers world to actually answer the question.

You both claim that none of that glucose will be converted to fat stores, are you then saying that the glucose will stay in the blood stream until burnt as fuel - if that's how you claim biology works then I certainly don't grasp your version of biology!

I don't believe that is what either of them said. I think they said it would get stored as fat and then released later in the day... or day to follow. Which is what I think the body does naturally. Store a little but when you are fed and burn a little bit when you are fasted.

Nope - tigersworld (on page 2) claimed that glucose being converted into body fat on a deficit was impossible.

My understanding of biology is that is not the case. My understanding is that it will be stored as an immediate reaction to excessive sugar on the blood stream (when not being burnt and glycogen stores full or less storage available than glucose in the system)and then, as you have said - released later (albeit the body fat used at a later stage may not be from the glucose that has just been converted to fat).

Apparently these guys have a different thought process and I'm keen to understand what that is?

tennisdude2004

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

Why wouldn't you apply it to a 24 hour day? How would fat burning be zero, when fat burning is a constant, 24/7 process? What would net fat oxidation be after 24 hours in a deficit? Are you trying to say that storage would exceed oxidation? Or are you intentionally ignoring the fact that fat oxidation is occurring to try and skew your answer? To go even further, what would happen in that 4 hour period after eating 1000 calories of pure fat? Hint, it would also be stored as body fat, just like the sugar.

We talk in 24 hour periods because that's what matters. The human body is constantly storing and oxidizing fat. What matters is the overall net storage or oxidation over time, not what happens in a 2 or 3 hour period.

Because it's easier to try to prove a point using extreme examples. It's also amusing how the a certain someone in the thread that didn't grasp biology, was asked questions, he ignored them all, then thanks someone with an extreme example.

I'm still waiting for you are tigers world to actually answer the question.

You both claim that none of that glucose will be converted to fat stores, are you then saying that the glucose will stay in the blood stream until burnt as fuel - if that's how you claim biology works then I certainly don't grasp your version of biology!

I don't believe that is what either of them said. I think they said it would get stored as fat and then released later in the day... or day to follow. Which is what I think the body does naturally. Store a little but when you are fed and burn a little bit when you are fasted.

Yup, that^ That's why this whole let's look at fat gain/loss over the course of 1 or 4 hours makes no sense. People are picking and creating situations to suit their argument. We can't simply just look at situations in terms of small time frames because we are alive and our bodies operate 24/7.

Now I know you are probably just going to try and spin in around and say "Well I guess you are saying excess sugar can be stored as fat, I though you said it couldn't". I'm not going to go back and forth with nonsense type of cherry picking debates. We cannot just isolate one short time frame of our 24 hour day.

Now how about you go back a couple of pages and answer the questions you were asked.

What questions - re-ask them if you want I'm not going back to look.

Maybe if you didn't jump in on the back of my posts we wouldn't end up in these debates!

You moan about these discussions, but most of the time you are the one sparking them by responding to posts not directed to you.

J72FIT

Nope - tigersworld (on page 2) claimed that glucose being converted into body fat on a deficit was impossible.

With all due respect, I think you are nitpicking to make a point...

tennisdude2004

Yes and no.

I made a reasonable statement on page one which Tigersworld choose to dispute. My statement wasn't about gaining weight or storing excess body fat on a deficit, it was simply that glucose can be converted to body fat in a deficit.

As tigersworld disputed that I assumed he thought that it really was impossible, albeit that the stored fat would be released at a later stage for fuel.

M27 did his usual jumping in on the back of a debate to try and prove me wrong and be generally condescending (which is cool), not sure he reads the previous posts before he does that though.

So are we in agreement that in a deficit glucose can be converted to body fat?

J72FIT

So are we in agreement that in a deficit glucose can be converted to body fat?

I would say that glucose, along with protein and fat can "temporarily" be stored as fat in a deficit... to be used later in the day to meet the energy and structure demands of the body.

This of course is not what we are concerned with. We are concerned with what our bodies do over time. Will this make us fatter over time... in a deficit... no.

tennisdude2004

Yes and no.

I made a reasonable statement on page one which Tigersworld choose to dispute. My statement wasn't about gaining weight or storing excess body fat on a deficit, it was simply that glucose can be converted to body fat in a deficit.

As tigersworld disputed that I assumed he thought that it really was impossible, albeit that the stored fat would be released at a later stage for fuel.

M27 did his usual jumping in on the back of a debate to try and prove me wrong and be generally condescending (which is cool), not sure he reads the previous posts before he does that though.

So are we in agreement that in a deficit glucose can be converted to body fat?

I guess I'm not allowed to give my opinion unless asked.

Please I welcome it!

My only issue is you chip in to the debate (which is great) and ten whine about the fact we are having a debate - when you are the one that chose to join in.

You either want a discussion or debate or don't!

tennisdude2004

So are we in agreement that in a deficit glucose can be converted to body fat?

I would say that glucose, along with protein and fat can "temporarily" be stored as fat in a deficit... to be used later in the day to meet the energy and structure demands of the body.

This of course is not what we are concerned with. We are concerned with what our bodies do over time. Will this make us fatter over time... in a deficit... no.

Fine then we are on the same page. M27 are you agreement so we can end this particular discussion?

jofjltncb6

Nope - tigersworld (on page 2) claimed that glucose being converted into body fat on a deficit was impossible.

My understanding of biology is that is not the case. My understanding is that it will be stored as an immediate reaction to excessive sugar on the blood stream (when not being burnt and glycogen stores full or less storage available than glucose in the system)and then, as you have said - released later (albeit the body fat used at a later stage may not be from the glucose that has just been converted to fat).

Apparently these guys have a different thought process and I'm keen to understand what that is?

Perhaps because in that particular short time-frame immediately after 1000 calories of anything, the body is not in a deficit *at that moment*. However, if the body is in a net deficit for the entire day/other period of time, the end result is essentially the same. Any excess that was stored because of the short surplus will be utilized during the overall deficit period.

Perhaps. No relevant cites to support my beliefs here. But hopefully true, otherwise, the IF people would not only not experience any meaningful progress, but also would have markedly poorer body composition as compared to their more frequently eating brethren. Anecdotally, I simply don't believe the latter to be the case.

ETA: Oh. I see that this has been resolved now. (You'd think I would learn to read to the end of a thread before responding. Well, you'd think incorrectly if you did.)

tennisdude2004

Yes and no.

I made a reasonable statement on page one which Tigersworld choose to dispute. My statement wasn't about gaining weight or storing excess body fat on a deficit, it was simply that glucose can be converted to body fat in a deficit.

As tigersworld disputed that I assumed he thought that it really was impossible, albeit that the stored fat would be released at a later stage for fuel.

M27 did his usual jumping in on the back of a debate to try and prove me wrong and be generally condescending (which is cool), not sure he reads the previous posts before he does that though.

So are we in agreement that in a deficit glucose can be converted to body fat?

I guess I'm not allowed to give my opinion unless asked.

Please I welcome it!

My only issue is you chip in to the debate (which is great) and ten whine about the fact we are having a debate - when you are the one that chose to join in.

You either want a discussion or debate or don't!

No I don't whine about the debating. I simply point out that you like to debate in extremes and often debate not so much to prove a point but more to just create a debate.

Nope - tigersworld (on page 2) claimed that glucose being converted into body fat on a deficit was impossible.

My understanding of biology is that is not the case. My understanding is that it will be stored as an immediate reaction to excessive sugar on the blood stream (when not being burnt and glycogen stores full or less storage available than glucose in the system)and then, as you have said - released later (albeit the body fat used at a later stage may not be from the glucose that has just been converted to fat).

Apparently these guys have a different thought process and I'm keen to understand what that is?

Perhaps because in that particular short time-frame immediately after 1000 calories of anything, the body is not in a deficit *at that moment*. However, if the body is in a net deficit for the entire day/other period of time, the end result is essentially the same. Any excess that was stored because of the short surplus will be utilized during the overall deficit period.

Perhaps. No relevant cites to support my beliefs here. But hopefully true, otherwise, the IF people would not only not experience any meaningful progress, but also would have markedly poorer body composition as compared to their more frequently eating brethren. Anecdotally, I simply don't believe the latter to be the case.

ETA: Oh. I see that this has been resolved now. (You'd think I would learn to read to the end of a thread before responding. Well, you'd think incorrectly if you did.)

Agree with that statement above^^^

So do agree that the body in a deficit will convert excessive glucose into body fat once it has filled the glycogen stores - and this fat is to be used as fuel at a later time?

I'm still not sure if that is your understanding or not.

Oh and it takes 2 to have a debate - if my debating offends that much, walk on by.