FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT
Replies
-
sugar that's eaten in excess of the body's calorie requirements converts to fat
bears sh** in the woods
the Pope is catholic
ETA: this is high school biology... your cells break sugar down for energy:
sugar + oxygen ----> energy + carbon dioxide + water
unless your cells don't need that energy because you're eating too much, in which case it's stored as fat. Not just fructose, all sugars (all carbs in fact), and fat, and if you actually manage to eat too much protein, that too.
ETA #2: if you like high school chemistry, you can get the same chemical reaction much more quickly by burning sugar. It happens more slowly in your cell because of enzymes and stuff controlling the reaction to get the energy out slowly so the cell can use the energy, instead of dying in a mini ball of flames. But if you do that don't forget your safety goggles and to follow the school science lab safety rules or you'll get a detention.
My post has now gone off topic. The take-home message should be that there's nothing groundbreaking about fructose being converted to fat by the body. It's high school biology. And it only happens when you're in calorie surplus.
This actually isn't entirely true.
Your body still does triglyceride anabolism even when you're in a calorie deficit and losing weight, and some fructose will be converted to fat regardless of whether you haven't met your energy requirements.
When you're in a deficit, the rate of catabolism exceeds the rate of anabolism, but anabolism doesn't cease.
you're right.... thank you for correcting me :flowerforyou:0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
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?0 -
people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
from websters;
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..
I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy
I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.0 -
It seems like at least a day since the last Joanne thread - oh wait it was.
Definition on addiction by the way:
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.0 -
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?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/810.abstract?sid=6e96c043-b521-404c-893b-be8c7f1a8371
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/176680740 -
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 posts0 -
and if animal models are useless then why would people continue to use them in studies? just to *kitten* with rats?
people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
from websters;
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..
I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy
I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.0 -
and if animal models are useless then why would people continue to use them in studies? just to *kitten* with rats?
people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
from websters;
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..
I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy
I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.
They're useful insofar as they are hypothesis generating, and can be used as a preliminary step to human trials.
They cannot be used to draw direct conclusions about humans.0 -
and if animal models are useless then why would people continue to use them in studies? just to *kitten* with rats?
people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
from websters;
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..
I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy
I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.
It's better than ****ing with humans. Less entertaining perhaps. But better.0 -
i agree, but more often than not studies are unable to draw results directly from humans due to ethical reasons/more variables
They're useful insofar as they are hypothesis generating, and can be used as a preliminary step to human trials.
They cannot be used to draw direct conclusions about humans.0 -
i agree, but more often than not studies are unable to draw results directly from humans due to ethical reasons/more variables
They're useful insofar as they are hypothesis generating, and can be used as a preliminary step to human trials.
They cannot be used to draw direct conclusions about humans.
That is actually a rare instance. And at any rate, is completely irrelevant to the discussion, because those studies did not even show that rats get addicted to sugar.0 -
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.0 -
Do you know what food has the highest concentration of fructose?
Fruit.
The word fructose actually comes from the latin fructuse, which means fruit, combined with -ose which is the biochemical suffix for sugars. Would make a lot more sense if your picture was of an apple rather than of fruit loops since apples have about 6g of fructose for a 100g apple. Fruit loops has 12 grams of sucrose per serving and given that sucrose is 50 50 glucose and fructose that means it also has 6g of fructose per serving. So a serving of Fruit loops are about as "bad" for you as an apple in terms of fructose content. If that scares you you definitely shouldn't go near grapes, they have a lot more fructose in them than apples and holy crap don't even look at raisins.
Anything that puts you at a caloric surplus "converts" to fat in that any fat that you uptake during that time will be stored as excess.
As far as what your cells cannot digest actually your cells cannot digest a LOT of the food we eat, thats where the probiotic bacteria living in our gut come into play.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.0 -
This has been entertaining :flowerforyou:0
-
Everything in excess converts to fat. Or am I wrong. What's the controversy (rhetorical since I read the thread)?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.
So fruit is bad?0 -
Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit thenJesus. 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.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.
You aren't good with science, are you?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.
You aren't good with science, are you?
I'm actually extremely good with science. Its a significant part of how I make my living.
Read the words carefully. Literally. Then scientifically debunk anything in that post.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.
You aren't good with science, are you?
I'm actually extremely good with science. Its a significant part of how I make my living.
Read the words carefully. Literally. Then scientifically debunk anything in that post.
So what is your stance on fruit?0 -
Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit thenJesus. 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.
No, fruit is good for you. Keep eating it, as its a rather insignificant source of fructose, in terms of the average diet.
Do some research specifically on the metabolic pathways through which glucose is processed in the body, the resulting compounds of these processes, and the effects those compounds have elsewhere.
Don't choose ignorance.0 -
Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit thenJesus. 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.
No, fruit is good for you. Keep eating it, as its a rather insignificant source of fructose, in terms of the average diet.
Do some research specifically on the metabolic pathways through which glucose is processed in the body, the resulting compounds of these processes, and the effects those compounds have elsewhere.
Don't choose ignorance.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.
The above is from the same article where the OP got her information.0 -
You're SOL...we will remember you fondly*Spits out apple*
oh my god what have I done?0 -
Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit thenJesus. 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.
No, fruit is good for you. Keep eating it, as its a rather insignificant source of fructose, in terms of the average diet.
Do some research specifically on the metabolic pathways through which glucose is processed in the body, the resulting compounds of these processes, and the effects those compounds have elsewhere.
Don't choose ignorance.
Fructose per 100g of fruit:
Apples: 7.6
Banana: 2.6
Balckberries: 4.1
Sweet cherries: 6.2
Figs: 2.8
Grapes: 7.6
Honey: 42.2
Kiwi: 4.3
Mango: 2.9
Pear: 6.4
Raisins: 37.1
Currants: 37.1
So, how many grams can you eat before damage is done.0 -
Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit thenJesus. 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.
No, fruit is good for you. Keep eating it, as its a rather insignificant source of fructose, in terms of the average diet.
Do some research specifically on the metabolic pathways through which glucose is processed in the body, the resulting compounds of these processes, and the effects those compounds have elsewhere.
Don't choose ignorance.
Fructose per 100g of fruit:
Apples: 7.6
Banana: 2.6
Balckberries: 4.1
Sweet cherries: 6.2
Figs: 2.8
Grapes: 7.6
Honey: 42.2
Kiwi: 4.3
Mango: 2.9
Pear: 6.4
Raisins: 37.1
Currants: 37.1
So, how many grams can you eat before damage is done.
Apparently Freelee should be fatally ill by now, but she seems fine.0 -
bump0
-
lol
so, honey nut cheerios and trader joes honey sesame seed nuts are out?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions