Sugar in fruit

SenoraMacias

Ok, I'm over on my sugar today, but 28g of it is from apples (raw, plain). Is this bad?

kristy_estes21

I'm not a professional by any means (lol), but I don't think it's bad. I personally think the 20g of sugar it has preset is crazy! Mainly because fruit has a lot of sugar, but it's good in moderation. I personally look more at the stuff with sugar added to it...not naturally occuring sugar.

mapexdrummer69

You are fine. All carbs will eventually turn into sugars in the body. Fruits are also high in nutrients. As long as you stay in a caloric deficit, it will not hinder weight loss.

lt_mrcook

Sugar in fruit is not bad, since it is bound with the fiber in the fruit. Refined sugar is bad, and HFCS is worse. The easier it is for the sugar to enter your system, the worse it is for you.

McKayMachina

Sugar affects your body the same regardless of its source. Yes, that includes fruit. Its fructose - a type of sugar. Search the forums for this. There are tons of threads on it.

CFAITH_WARD

Again not a professional but as someone who knows about diabetes any sugar will raise blood sugar....So it gives the spike which makes you want to eat afterwards.....Fruit is good but anything to excess is not good....I have only really small apples (portion control) and no more then two fruits a day and most ofthen one of those fruits is berries of some kind they are much better on sugar.

jasonweinberg

You are fine. All carbs will eventually turn into sugars in the body. Fruits are also high in nutrients. As long as you stay in a caloric deficit, it will not hinder weight loss.

i disagree. from my experience watching sugars/carbs in conjunction to calories and getting lots of exercise helps tremendously. from my experience and what i was taught sugars and carbs in your daily food supply can slow fatburning because your body can convert them to quick energy instead of burning stored fat, even if there is a calorie deficit. this is pretty much the whole theory behind the atkins diet.

SHBoss1673

well.. ok, so you're over by 34 grams, that's a bit high, but as you said, much of it is fruit sugar which has a high concentration of fructose in it, which isn't as bad as sucrose is. So would I say being 34 over is ok? Probably not. But I wouldn't call it a disaster either. I'd probably try to keep your combined sugar below 50 grams per day, or added sugar below 35 grams.

lt_mrcook

You are fine. All carbs will eventually turn into sugars in the body. Fruits are also high in nutrients. As long as you stay in a caloric deficit, it will not hinder weight loss.

Yes, but how quickly they turn into a sugar (glucose) is HUGELY important. Not to mention that free Fructose, like that in HFCS easily enters your blood and has to be broken down by your liver...like a poison or alcohol.

How easy is it to stay calorie negative when what you're eating is sending signals to your brain that you are still hungry (not that you're full like it should)?

lt_mrcook

well.. ok, so you're over by 34 grams, that's a bit high, but as you said, much of it is fruit sugar which has a high concentration of fructose in it, which isn't as bad as sucrose is. So would I say being 34 over is ok? Probably not. But I wouldn't call it a disaster either. I'd probably try to keep your combined sugar below 50 grams per day, or added sugar below 35 grams.

Sucrose is a disacaride made up of one glucose and one FRUCTOSE with a weak oxygen bond between them. Glucose is the sugar that all living things use as their primary source of energy. Fructose has to either be broken down by the benificial bacteria in your gut (the only way it gets that far is if it's bound) or in your liver. Excessive free fructose causes fatty liver, metabolic disorder, and several other things listed in the top ten killers.

mapexdrummer69

Yes, but how quickly they turn into a sugar (glucose) is HUGELY important. Not to mention that free Fructose, like that in HFCS easily enters your blood and has to be broken down by your liver...like a poison or alcohol.

How easy is it to stay calorie negative when what you're eating is sending signals to your brain that you are still hungry (not that you're full like it should)?

Care to explain why it's important, in the context of proper daily nutrition and not having diabetes?

SHBoss1673

Sugar affects your body the same regardless of its source. Yes, that includes fruit. Its fructose - a type of sugar. Search the forums for this. There are tons of threads on it.

Respectfully, this is incorrect. Fructose has a different metabolic process than sucrose does. Fructose takes longer to digest than does sucrose;

here's why (WARNING geeky science stuff coming)

Fructose is a monosaccharide, as is glucose. Sucrose on the other hand is a disaccharide and is composed of one fructose and one glucose. Since the human body can use glucose directly as energy, Sucrose is digested in the stomach and glucose immediately enters the blood stream as fast energy, increasing the response from the pancreas and insulin release.
Fructose either directly consumed or after the digestion of sucrose must travel through the stomach, the duodenum, and into the small intestine where it is absorbed and transported to the liver for breakdown and conversion before being used, this takes far longer and thus you don't "spike" your blood sugar with fructose like you do with sucrose and many other highly processed simple carbohydrates.

this is the quick and dirty answer. But of course, a percentage of fruit sugar is also sucrose, so it's not all black and white, and the percentage varies depending on the type of fruit.

TK421NotAtPost

You are fine. All carbs will eventually turn into sugars in the body. Fruits are also high in nutrients. As long as you stay in a caloric deficit, it will not hinder weight loss.

i disagree. from my experience watching sugars/carbs in conjunction to calories and getting lots of exercise helps tremendously. from my experience and what i was taught sugars and carbs in your daily food supply can slow fatburning because your body can convert them to quick energy instead of burning stored fat, even if there is a calorie deficit. this is pretty much the whole theory behind the atkins diet.

Atkins will help you lose weight, but not for that reason you state.

mapexdrummer69

Atkins will help you lose weight?


Care to explain why? A caloric deficit will make you lose weight. No magic involved.

SenoraMacias

I'm not doing Atkins or any other crazy thing. Just wondering if I should cut back on fruit. Geez if you can't have fruit, what CAN you have??

mapexdrummer69

Again, fruit is fine and dense in micronutrients.


Edit: Sorry OP, people like to way overthink things when it comes to dieting. If you enjoy fruit and can fit it into your macronutrients and calorie budget, eat away.

TK421NotAtPost

Atkins will help you lose weight?


Care to explain why? A caloric deficit will make you lose weight. No magic involved.

Well, that's a selective quotation of what I said. Atkins will help you lose weight but NOT for the reason they state. It's the caloric deficit (not the insulinz!) :laugh:

Long-term weight loss can ONLY be achieve through a caloric deficit, and nothing else.

mapexdrummer69

Atkins will help you lose weight?


Care to explain why? A caloric deficit will make you lose weight. No magic involved.

Well, that's a selective quotation of what I said. Atkins will help you lose weight but NOT for the reason they state. It's the caloric deficit (not the insulinz!) :laugh:

Long-term weight loss can ONLY be achieve through a caloric deficit, and nothing else.

=breath of fresh air.


Edit: Lol at the insulinz!

McKayMachina

Sugar affects your body the same regardless of its source. Yes, that includes fruit. Its fructose - a type of sugar. Search the forums for this. There are tons of threads on it.

Respectfully, this is incorrect. Fructose has a different metabolic process than sucrose does. Fructose takes longer to digest than does sucrose;

It's not incorrect. It's just incomplete. I don't think all fruits/sugars are created equal. I probably shouldn't have said "affects your body the same". That was too simplistic and misleading. I just wanted OP to hear that it still counts.

jasonweinberg

my apologies to the thread starter. sorry discussions always seem to become some kind of major ego explosions in answer to a simple question. i never suggested you go on atkins. i just meant to use its theories as a reference as to why watching carbs and sugars can impact weightloss above and beyond counting calories.

if calorie deficit is absolutely the only thing that matters, why do we bother to track the other things?

SHBoss1673

Sugar affects your body the same regardless of its source. Yes, that includes fruit. Its fructose - a type of sugar. Search the forums for this. There are tons of threads on it.

Respectfully, this is incorrect. Fructose has a different metabolic process than sucrose does. Fructose takes longer to digest than does sucrose;

It's not incorrect. It's just incomplete. I don't think all fruits/sugars are created equal. I probably shouldn't have said "affects your body the same". That was too simplistic and misleading. I just wanted OP to hear that it still counts.

right, which is my point. Because fructose takes longer to digest, it's more evenly distributed throughout the body and over a longer period of time, which gives your body more time to use that energy. It's a fact that when blood sugar spikes, the body stores any energy it can't immediately use as fat, thus, if you even out and reduce the levels of energy in the body you store less fat. Which is why it is more than just incomplete.
and Yes, I recognize that fat is still energy so the total energy hasn't changed, but the problem with that argument is that fat has a different route to energy than does glucose, and is not as efficient as glucose as energy (more ATP per molecule NET).

This is basically the whole reasoning behind why processed flour is worse for you than whole wheat. The time it takes to digest is very important to GI and GL (Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load)

SenoraMacias

Wowwww!!!! Thanks for the free chemistry lesson guys!!!

milaxx

I think this question gets asked at least once a day. It depends on who you ask. Personally i don't like to go over any of my numbers, but I also don't think a one time occurrence is going to kill you. :happy:

mapexdrummer69

To the two above posts:


As I've stated multiple times, calorie deficit is what rules WEIGHT LOSS. NOT overall health. Micronutrients are very important as well, and the the body has daily needs for FATS and PROTEINS. Carbohydrates are not an essential macronutrient.


As far as the GI, GL, digestion rates of carbohydrates, this is LARGELY irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily fat and protein intake. Transient hormonal fluctuations such as insulin, glucagon, IGF-1, etc have very little effect in long term and sustained weight loss. The body is in a constant swing of storing and oxidizing nutrients, all that matters are the numbers you achieve at the end of the day.

aimeeturner

I tend to go over in my sugar category pretty much every day. In my protein shake alone, there is 17 g of sugar which is mostly in the 0% milk that I use. I also eat fruit mostly every day - strawberries, blueberries and red grapes. I am not a nutritionist so I don't know all the technical information about sugar. But what I do know is that I have lost 23 pounds and I am down to 113 which is below my goal weight. So, everything in moderation is what I suggest - which includes fruit

TK421NotAtPost

my apologies to the thread starter. sorry discussions always seem to become some kind of major ego explosions in answer to a simple question. i never suggested you go on atkins. i just meant to use its theories as a reference as to why watching carbs and sugars can impact weightloss above and beyond counting calories.

if calorie deficit is absolutely the only thing that matters, why do we bother to track the other things?

What does ego have anything to do with it?

My only point was that people on Atkins will lose weight, but like many other low CHO plans, there is an overexaggeration of insulin's role in this process. Studies show that people on low CHO plans reduce overall caloric intake and lose weight. Insulin, driven by high CHO intake (or the "wrong" CHO's) is not the cause of the metabolic imbalance that underlies obesity.

lloydrt

I dont have any scientific citings or data to read about it. For me, and again, this is MY own point of view. When I started to lose weight, I only did cardio, too fat to attempt to do weights

I ate tons of berries, straberries, black berries, and blueberries in the morning. I then ate pinto beans, and BBQ chicken breast, both of those are awesome for protein. The beans are great for protein and NO SODIUM..........

then I drank tons of water, daily..........then 8 months later, I started using weights...........

I DONT EAT REFINED SUGARS, NO SALTS, ABSOLUTELY NO PROCESSED FOODS, and ate , sparingly wheat pasta......and lots of Apple Cider Vinegar with cucumbers and tons of Brocolli

that worked for me....again, Im 56 , male and was morbidly obese. My highest weight was 360 , I just lost my 120th pound , Im using my Drs scale for reference, with makes that 120 lbs lost since Feb of 2011. I know my ticker says now,138, of which is correct, but since scales vary, Im using my Drs for reference........regardless, people dont recognize me at time...........Love it

thats it in a nut shell. I wasnt athletic, had high blood pressure, sleep apnea, exercise induced asthma, and my legs and fingers were puffy, could be ademia,

today, Im asthma free, no more high blood pressure, no more sleep apnea, no puffiness, Im thinn, bones show everywhere, Im tall, 6 foot tall, I ve lost my 52 inch waist to a 34 healthy waist size , I ve never been healthier and happier, I walk, go to the gym for up to 3 hours , I could only last 10 mins when I first walked into a gym, and now Im there 6 days a week, from 2 to 3 hours....I ve never been healthier, the readings of a 30 year old.............read my bio, it gives you a heads up about me......

I was according to the BMI index chart 48.8 (morbidly obese),and now Im 29.8 ( just overweight) , lol, I even lost 2 shoe sizes.....
my shirt size is L, from 6XL.............

Wanna lose weight. and be sucessful? .........follow what I did, it worked for me. Again, Im not a professional, Im just some one whos lost 120 lbs (138 using my highest weight) all in 14 months...............Best wishes, Lloyd

mapexdrummer69

Not an ego trip. It's simply scientific fact. Lowering CHO from ANY source will lower overall caloric intake, seeing that protein and fat intake are not dramatically increased to create a caloric surplus. Causation is not equal to correlation.


I'm just trying to make it clear that there is no food that hinders weight loss, and there is no food that can be consumed that will accelerate it either. Weight loss is ONLY contributed to a caloric deficit. Not saying that low carb diets don't work for people, I'm just saying that there is no diet that reigns supreme in terms of weight loss. Keeping that in mind, foods do contain vitamins and minerals that are important for overall health, so keeping a diversed diet rich in whole foods can be beneficial in terms of overall health, but cannot be attributed to weight loss or weight gain.

jasonweinberg

you can repeat that calorie deficit is the only thing that effects long-term weight-loss as many times as you want. you can believe it as much as you want. you can think i am stupid as much as you want. but my entire program was based on not only counting calories but also carefully watching carbs and sugars and i had tremendous success with it. maybe i would have had identical success eating the exact sames amount of calories without carefully watching my carbs and sugars, but i don't believe that to be true.

mapexdrummer69

you can repeat that calorie deficit is the only thing that effects long-term weight-loss as many times as you want. you can believe it as much as you want. you can think i am stupid as much as you want. but my entire program was based on not only counting calories but also carefully watching carbs and sugars and i had tremendous success with it. maybe i would have had identical success eating the exact sames amount of calories without carefully watching my carbs and sugars, but i don't believe that to be true.

I in NO way think you're stupid nor was I implying that. I'm just saying that correlation does not imply causation. If you find it convenient to limit your carbs and sugars and you don't enjoy those foods, then simply do not eat them.

jasonweinberg

What does ego have anything to do with it?

many on this site are very focused on jumping at the chance to contradict and one-up others opinions on these forums. i tried to avoid that when disagreeing with the person whose post i responded to. i would have appreciated it if those that responded to my post offered me the same respect.