FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

_Resolve_

*Spits out apple*


oh my god what have I done?

you just added a pound of fat mass to your body, I hope the apple was worth it….

noooooooooo I better do a raspberry ketone and chase it with a cucumber water asap

MityMax96

you can pry my fruit from my cold dead hands!

Open diary, blow sugar macros out of the water every day

still losing weight.

Believe in added sugars in moderation, but fruit? All day every day. Not a day goes by I dont have it!

You dear lady are playing with a ticking time bomb....don't you know that???:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

iPlatano

And if it really does. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day if you are eating at a deficit you will lose weight.

iPlatano

It almost seems redundant after all the sensible replies. But I will say it anyway. Sugar is only evil if over indulged in. It's true your body can become addicted to it. In fact I was and breaking that addiction was perhaps the greatest test of willpower in my life. BUT I do not blame sugar for that I blame my own weak will and lack of restraint. I overdid it and that got my metabolism hooked on those quick empty calories. And it's as simple as that. Used in moderation sugar is a welcome part of any homo sapiens diet. And THE best thing to recover energy after exercise. It's not just ok it's USEFUL

If sugar is as addictive as drugs why dont you see people sucking ****s for Oreo, cookies or lollipops? When people start doing that then you can talk about sugar being a drug.

BigT555

It almost seems redundant after all the sensible replies. But I will say it anyway. Sugar is only evil if over indulged in. It's true your body can become addicted to it. In fact I was and breaking that addiction was perhaps the greatest test of willpower in my life. BUT I do not blame sugar for that I blame my own weak will and lack of restraint. I overdid it and that got my metabolism hooked on those quick empty calories. And it's as simple as that. Used in moderation sugar is a welcome part of any homo sapiens diet. And THE best thing to recover energy after exercise. It's not just ok it's USEFUL

If sugar is as addictive as drugs why dont you think people will be sucking this for Oreo cookies or lollipops? When people start doing that then you can talk about sugar being a drug.

Id be surprised to learn if anyone has sucked a d for weed or mushrooms, or on a lower scale, aspirin or allergy meds, but they are drugs nonetheless. the term "drug" doesnt have the strict conditions that most people think it does

Hendrix7

It almost seems redundant after all the sensible replies. But I will say it anyway. Sugar is only evil if over indulged in. It's true your body can become addicted to it. In fact I was and breaking that addiction was perhaps the greatest test of willpower in my life. BUT I do not blame sugar for that I blame my own weak will and lack of restraint. I overdid it and that got my metabolism hooked on those quick empty calories. And it's as simple as that. Used in moderation sugar is a welcome part of any homo sapiens diet. And THE best thing to recover energy after exercise. It's not just ok it's USEFUL

If sugar is as addictive as drugs why dont you think people will be sucking this for Oreo cookies or lollipops? When people start doing that then you can talk about sugar being a drug.

Id be surprised to learn if anyone has sucked a d for weed

I wouldn't

FrankieTrailBlazer

Lustig is a crank, an Atkins Foundation-funded researcher. He is just towing the company line.


http://www.plantpositive.com/25-cholesterol-confusion-8-a-l
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wmidN8rYkU&index=26&list=PLv3QDzdxan_JkGX47Rpboyh2oYyAFZDBA

Good luck in your research.

BigT555

Id be surprised to learn if anyone has sucked a d for weed

I wouldn't

then i dont think you've ever tried it. you would have to be pretty desperate for such a mundane high

F00LofaT00K

Stooooooooooooop iiiiiiiiiiiiiit! PLEASE??????

Many things in this world convert to many other things in this world. I eat sugar, I am getting less and less fat every day. It's impossible for the body to gain weight while in a caloric deficit, regardless of where the calories come from. The ONLY reason sugar should be limited to any degree is because of its lack of nutrients. It's better to get more of your carbs from vitamin rich fruits and veggies than skittles and laffy taffy. . . but there's is absolutely NOTHING wrong with eating sugar, even on a daily basis, unless the person suffers from a medical condition in which they cannot properly manage their blood sugar. I EAT CANDY OFTEN. And cake. And ice cream. I had Lucky Charms this morning and didn't get fat.

kgeyser

Oh Joanne, do you think we can't google? Here's another snip from the article that you conveniently left out:

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.

And here's a link to the article in its entirety, since I have a little thing called ethics:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425

:blushing:

AnotherXFitGuy

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

stevencloser

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

What kind of argument is that? "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing" ?
Sorry, but if someone says something blatantly wrong on a board where lots of people go to find information on how to lose weight, wrong things have to be corrected.
And for weight loss, that means calories in vs. calories out. You can't get around that. So if someone comes and says "never eat this or that cause it'll make you fat", that's a lie and nothing more.

lemonsnowdrop

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

Please, give me a way to lose/maintain weight without staying under a certain amount of net calories. I'll listen.

kgeyser

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

Once again, from the article:

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.

No ignorance or demonizing, simply including an important portion of the article that Joanne omitted because it didn't fit her agenda. I'm also the person who provided a link to the full article, so if anything I'm more supportive of people reading and deciding for themselves. The OP is the one just expecting you to blindly agree with something because she said the word "Harvard" and included cherry-picked portions of an article with a fear-mongering image pulled off the web.

_Resolve_

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

then this is REALLY going to blow your mind. In Nov 2012 I had an A1C of 9.7% and was 375lbs, now 15 months later I am 214 lbs with a NORMAL A1C, off my diabetes medication completely and eat at least 3 pieces of fruit daily. When I was extremely sick I hardly ate any fruit. So is Sugar the problem? NO people over eating is the problem. Accountability is the problem and making excuses like the big bad sugar monster is the problem.

TheBrolympus

Y'all should check out the apple diet.

3dogsrunning

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

That would be fine had the OP posted the entire article instead of picking points from it that supported her arguments and conveniently left out the points that didn't (as well as forgetting to include the link to the article so that we could actually read the WHOLE thing ourselves).
I do not think one person here demonized the article. A lot posted further information that was posted within the article that did not agree with what the OP was claiming the article said.

ndj1979

I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

totally legit reasoning...