FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT
Options
Replies
-
you "refuting" them was you just saying it was wrong with no backing.
what would be your arguments against.
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...
if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....
or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
Sugar is not physically addicting. There is absolutely zero evidence that it is. Your arguments please?
ive already spent too much time on this one, look at my other posts
I've already refuted them. I was hoping you had better ones.
the article that you posted (The association of food characteristics and individual differences with ratings of craving and liking) doesnt mention addiction once. it has to do with people liking the food, not addiction.
obviously we arent on the same page with this, so im just going to leave one more study stating that food addiction in general is plausible and leave, because clearly we are never going to agree on this one
http://nutrition.highwire.org/content/139/3/617.short
You can't prove it so your gonna flounce? OK.0 -
Alcohol converts to stupid decisions at 3AM0
-
Don't assume you know what my eating habits were like or that I didn't go out to the store at 2am while up watching TV because I wanted some sour patch kids or other candies. Don't make assumptions as to what my frame of mind was at that time. Do I blame the candy for making me fat? No. I chose to go buy it, it didn't jump into my mouth. At the end of the day my desire to feel better about myself and get fit was greater than my desire to stuff my face all day with whatever I wanted.@ MrM27
No that's a misconception. You can in fact be obese and not be addicted to sugar. You can also have one of these bodies that can't be anything other than skinny AND be addicted to sugar. The two things often go together but are not mutually dependent. I was suggesting your sugar cravings probably weren't as bad as mine. Because if they where you would simply probably change your mind. Sure dismiss it if you like but that's all I will say. I believe in what I say about foods like this wholeheartedly.
However I am NOT an advocate of totally "clean" eating, as if there is such a thing as dirty food anyway lol. Nor am I demonizing sugar. I am simply suggesting that just because an engine is designed to handle moderate amounts of something effectively doesn't mean that flooding the engine with it is a good idea. I mean if THAT where true there would be no need to calorie count. Our body would just smartly take what it needed from our food and nor more. And we would be able to eat for enjoyment as long as we met minimum quotas.
Since that is not the case I advocate moderation. And also because I was surprised as well. For years i guffawed at sugar addiction. I just kept saying .. i like it because it tastes good. But I truly made a mistake I regret and that was difficult to put right. Admittedly I had to jump preeeety far off the sane path to do it. But no force of debate on earth will convince me I was not addicted to sugar. You really might as well try to convince me that the sky is blue. I know this is an appeal to emotion but frankly for relating ones human experience I can't think of a much better way to do it. I'm not really looking for sympathy either. I ate all that damn sugar. But I do get annoyed when people outright dismiss things that lie outside their knowledge. Just because you have never been heavily dependent on sugar doesn't mean it isn't possible.
I understand that you want to stop people from being too obsessed with healthy eating. That's a real problem too. I wouldn't even DARE poo poo it. But to me this is something as real as a kick in the teeth and I would be grateful if you didn't deny that. However if you remain unconvinced we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Bodies that can't be anything but skinny don't exist. Anyone can get fat. Fact.
I understand addiction. As I was once an addict, but not to sugar. I understand you'd be grateful if i didn't deny sugar addiction but unfortunately I have to deny it. Sorry. Not so sorry. I'm going sit here and try to convince you on anything. You do what you need to get you through the day. I never said I want people to be obsessed with healthy eating. I could care less if the guy next to me is eating a salad or a bowl of broccoli for lunch just don't look at me and criticize me because I went and got pizza or tacos (with yellow rice and white flour tortillas).
I'm hoping one day someone will come along and say "Man, I sure was addicted to that sugar in bananas or onions or mangos. But alas the only ones that come around are the ones that were addicted to soda, candy and cereal. Maybe one day.
I will agree with one part of your statement. II put it in bold for you above.
Our body doesn't get addicted to the sugar in fruit because we can't eat enough fruit to give us enough sugar and make us addicted. And yes anyone can get fat but some peoples metabolism gear into burning fat too much that they would literally have to stuff themselves from dawn to dusk to do so. And even then it would only be significant after overcoming their own metabolic inertia. If you think that everyone has the same experience with putting on and losing weight then that is just you being close minded about things outside your experience.
Prattle all you like but I am unconvinced that you are really doing anything but soap boxing your opinion. And while I constantly acknowledge that my words come from firmly held opinions about my life experiences. All you do is give your opinion and then write FACT next to it as if that makes it so. I do not feel that I should need to point out that even scientists don't state their findings as fact.
Shall we have a contest to see who can shout IM RIGHT! the loudest next?
Well I'm just gonna keep giving people with the same problem as me the advice that helped me out. And you can keep telling them the problem doesn't exist. I am happy to let them decide which one of us to listen to. Because I know they will understand.0 -
Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!0 -
Alcohol converts to stupid decisions at 3AM
QFT :drinker:0 -
Don't assume you know what my eating habits were like or that I didn't go out to the store at 2am while up watching TV because I wanted some sour patch kids or other candies. Don't make assumptions as to what my frame of mind was at that time. Do I blame the candy for making me fat? No. I chose to go buy it, it didn't jump into my mouth. At the end of the day my desire to feel better about myself and get fit was greater than my desire to stuff my face all day with whatever I wanted.@ MrM27
No that's a misconception. You can in fact be obese and not be addicted to sugar. You can also have one of these bodies that can't be anything other than skinny AND be addicted to sugar. The two things often go together but are not mutually dependent. I was suggesting your sugar cravings probably weren't as bad as mine. Because if they where you would simply probably change your mind. Sure dismiss it if you like but that's all I will say. I believe in what I say about foods like this wholeheartedly.
However I am NOT an advocate of totally "clean" eating, as if there is such a thing as dirty food anyway lol. Nor am I demonizing sugar. I am simply suggesting that just because an engine is designed to handle moderate amounts of something effectively doesn't mean that flooding the engine with it is a good idea. I mean if THAT where true there would be no need to calorie count. Our body would just smartly take what it needed from our food and nor more. And we would be able to eat for enjoyment as long as we met minimum quotas.
Since that is not the case I advocate moderation. And also because I was surprised as well. For years i guffawed at sugar addiction. I just kept saying .. i like it because it tastes good. But I truly made a mistake I regret and that was difficult to put right. Admittedly I had to jump preeeety far off the sane path to do it. But no force of debate on earth will convince me I was not addicted to sugar. You really might as well try to convince me that the sky is blue. I know this is an appeal to emotion but frankly for relating ones human experience I can't think of a much better way to do it. I'm not really looking for sympathy either. I ate all that damn sugar. But I do get annoyed when people outright dismiss things that lie outside their knowledge. Just because you have never been heavily dependent on sugar doesn't mean it isn't possible.
I understand that you want to stop people from being too obsessed with healthy eating. That's a real problem too. I wouldn't even DARE poo poo it. But to me this is something as real as a kick in the teeth and I would be grateful if you didn't deny that. However if you remain unconvinced we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Bodies that can't be anything but skinny don't exist. Anyone can get fat. Fact.
I understand addiction. As I was once an addict, but not to sugar. I understand you'd be grateful if i didn't deny sugar addiction but unfortunately I have to deny it. Sorry. Not so sorry. I'm going sit here and try to convince you on anything. You do what you need to get you through the day. I never said I want people to be obsessed with healthy eating. I could care less if the guy next to me is eating a salad or a bowl of broccoli for lunch just don't look at me and criticize me because I went and got pizza or tacos (with yellow rice and white flour tortillas).
I'm hoping one day someone will come along and say "Man, I sure was addicted to that sugar in bananas or onions or mangos. But alas the only ones that come around are the ones that were addicted to soda, candy and cereal. Maybe one day.
I will agree with one part of your statement. II put it in bold for you above.
Our body doesn't get addicted to the sugar in fruit because we can't eat enough fruit to give us enough sugar and make us addicted. And yes anyone can get fat but some peoples metabolism gear into burning fat too much that they would literally have to stuff themselves from dawn to dusk to do so. And even then it would only be significant after overcoming their own metabolic inertia. If you think that everyone has the same experience with putting on and losing weight then that is just you being close minded about things outside your experience.
Prattle all you like but I am unconvinced that you are really doing anything but soap boxing your opinion. And while I constantly acknowledge that my words come from firmly held opinions about my life experiences. All you do is give your opinion and then write FACT next to it as if that makes it so. I do not feel that I should need to point out that even scientists don't state their findings as fact.
Shall we have a contest to see who can shout IM RIGHT! the loudest next?
Well I'm just gonna keep giving people with the same problem as me the advice that helped me out. And you can keep telling them the problem doesn't exist. I am happy to let them decide which one of us to listen to. Because I know they will understand.
That's why I only drink beer and not whiskey . . .0 -
Don't assume you know what my eating habits were like or that I didn't go out to the store at 2am while up watching TV because I wanted some sour patch kids or other candies. Don't make assumptions as to what my frame of mind was at that time. Do I blame the candy for making me fat? No. I chose to go buy it, it didn't jump into my mouth. At the end of the day my desire to feel better about myself and get fit was greater than my desire to stuff my face all day with whatever I wanted.@ MrM27
No that's a misconception. You can in fact be obese and not be addicted to sugar. You can also have one of these bodies that can't be anything other than skinny AND be addicted to sugar. The two things often go together but are not mutually dependent. I was suggesting your sugar cravings probably weren't as bad as mine. Because if they where you would simply probably change your mind. Sure dismiss it if you like but that's all I will say. I believe in what I say about foods like this wholeheartedly.
However I am NOT an advocate of totally "clean" eating, as if there is such a thing as dirty food anyway lol. Nor am I demonizing sugar. I am simply suggesting that just because an engine is designed to handle moderate amounts of something effectively doesn't mean that flooding the engine with it is a good idea. I mean if THAT where true there would be no need to calorie count. Our body would just smartly take what it needed from our food and nor more. And we would be able to eat for enjoyment as long as we met minimum quotas.
Since that is not the case I advocate moderation. And also because I was surprised as well. For years i guffawed at sugar addiction. I just kept saying .. i like it because it tastes good. But I truly made a mistake I regret and that was difficult to put right. Admittedly I had to jump preeeety far off the sane path to do it. But no force of debate on earth will convince me I was not addicted to sugar. You really might as well try to convince me that the sky is blue. I know this is an appeal to emotion but frankly for relating ones human experience I can't think of a much better way to do it. I'm not really looking for sympathy either. I ate all that damn sugar. But I do get annoyed when people outright dismiss things that lie outside their knowledge. Just because you have never been heavily dependent on sugar doesn't mean it isn't possible.
I understand that you want to stop people from being too obsessed with healthy eating. That's a real problem too. I wouldn't even DARE poo poo it. But to me this is something as real as a kick in the teeth and I would be grateful if you didn't deny that. However if you remain unconvinced we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Bodies that can't be anything but skinny don't exist. Anyone can get fat. Fact.
I understand addiction. As I was once an addict, but not to sugar. I understand you'd be grateful if i didn't deny sugar addiction but unfortunately I have to deny it. Sorry. Not so sorry. I'm going sit here and try to convince you on anything. You do what you need to get you through the day. I never said I want people to be obsessed with healthy eating. I could care less if the guy next to me is eating a salad or a bowl of broccoli for lunch just don't look at me and criticize me because I went and got pizza or tacos (with yellow rice and white flour tortillas).
I'm hoping one day someone will come along and say "Man, I sure was addicted to that sugar in bananas or onions or mangos. But alas the only ones that come around are the ones that were addicted to soda, candy and cereal. Maybe one day.
I will agree with one part of your statement. II put it in bold for you above.
Our body doesn't get addicted to the sugar in fruit because we can't eat enough fruit to give us enough sugar and make us addicted. And yes anyone can get fat but some peoples metabolism gear into burning fat too much that they would literally have to stuff themselves from dawn to dusk to do so. And even then it would only be significant after overcoming their own metabolic inertia. If you think that everyone has the same experience with putting on and losing weight then that is just you being close minded about things outside your experience.
Prattle all you like but I am unconvinced that you are really doing anything but soap boxing your opinion. And while I constantly acknowledge that my words come from firmly held opinions about my life experiences. All you do is give your opinion and then write FACT next to it as if that makes it so. I do not feel that I should need to point out that even scientists don't state their findings as fact.
Shall we have a contest to see who can shout IM RIGHT! the loudest next?
Well I'm just gonna keep giving people with the same problem as me the advice that helped me out. And you can keep telling them the problem doesn't exist. I am happy to let them decide which one of us to listen to. Because I know they will understand.
The facts of your life experience are anecdotal, equaling an n=1. While you have found a way that works for you (kudos btw) doesn't change the fact that sugar effects the brain the same way that all food does. And when I say fact, I mean scientifically established by an n>1 by quite a large margin.0 -
Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.0 -
mate this topic made me crave a banana
it was a good banana0 -
Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.0 -
Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time, limited to what? How much is too much? What is an acceptable number of grams for a 135lb female? Stop being general and get specific because generalized information is useless.0 -
http://www.muscleforlife.com/do-fructose-and-fruit-make-you-fat-and-unhealthy/
No, it doesn't.. If you go over your calories you get fat. If you don't have the right composition of macros, then your body composition will not be fantastic... However, if you're at a deficit, you'll lose weight (fat, muscle, could be one or both depending on your nutrition)
You could have twinkies and icea cream but if you're under your calories you'll still lose. You might be skinny fat, but you'll be thinner than you were when you were consuming. Even people on the Paleo diet, which is such a cult now, people have gotten FAT. They didn't consume sugar, but because they overindulged in their calories (fat has 9 calories per gram, whereas protein and carbs only have 4, and sugar is actually a simple carb.. thereby it has the same calories as protein..) have gained weight even though PALEO and "clean eating" are the holy grail in trends right now. Do more research before you post lame threads.0 -
Jesus. These comments.
The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.
Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.
You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.
This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.
None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.
Your body doesn't differentiate between fructose, sucrose, etc. It all converts it to glucose, your body won't be discriminating. Sugar is sugar is sugar when you are talking about weight gain. Calories are calories when you're talking about weight gain. Now, if you want to talk about nutrition, then fructose is your ideal sugar, as it comes from fruit, which has fiber and other nutritional properties, whereas candy is sucrose, and has zero benefit beyond an immediate rush. If you had a teaspoon of coconut sugar vs a teaspoon of white sugar, your insulin response would be quite different, as white sugar, honey, and agave nectar rank a 75/100 on the glycemic index, where as coconut sugar only hits at 35/100. If your concerns are nutritional/health, then you would want the lowest insulin response possible. If your concerns are weight loss, then its all the same regarding calories.0 -
What damaging materials are released into the body?Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.
Why don't we constantly here that fructose is bad for us? Why are we told to eat at least 11 servings of fruits and vegetables?
For the reasons in the post you quoted but apparently didn't read.0 -
Jesus. These comments.
The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.
Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.
You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.
This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.
None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.
Your body doesn't differentiate between fructose, sucrose, etc. It all converts it to glucose, your body won't be discriminating. Sugar is sugar is sugar when you are talking about weight gain. Calories are calories when you're talking about weight gain. Now, if you want to talk about nutrition, then fructose is your ideal sugar, as it comes from fruit, which has fiber and other nutritional properties, whereas candy is sucrose, and has zero benefit beyond an immediate rush. If you had a teaspoon of coconut sugar vs a teaspoon of white sugar, your insulin response would be quite different, as white sugar, honey, and agave nectar rank a 75/100 on the glycemic index, where as coconut sugar only hits at 35/100. If your concerns are nutritional/health, then you would want the lowest insulin response possible. If your concerns are weight loss, then its all the same regarding calories.
I'm not talking about weight gain, I'm talking about health. I'm not saying the calories are different, I'm saying the effect on the body is different in terms of biochemical outcomes. AGE's and triglycerides are released during the process of metabolizing fructose to a massively greater degree than is the case with glucose. Glucose can be directly processed as an energy source by every cell in your body. Fructose on the other hand must first be broken down in the liver by a totally different metabolic pathway, resulting in very different chemical outcomes before it can be reconstructed into glucose. Its a similar process to metabolizing alcohol.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized in the body by completely different processes because they are totally different substances. THAT is the key point that everyone seems desperate to ignore for some reason.0 -
I read it. You didn't say much.
What damaging materials are released into the body?Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.
Why don't we constantly here that fructose is bad for us? Why are we told to eat at least 11 servings of fruits and vegetables?
For the reasons in the post you quoted but apparently didn't read.
You said they release damaging materials, what materials?
He won't answer with specifics. He says fructose is bad but says that you don't have to completely avoid it. When asked how much is too much?
*crickets
When you ask what damaging materials?
*crickets
He's big on generalities but not on specifics.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions