The Fruit Sugar Debate

bunchesonothing

You can't say eating fructose is "worse" than eating fat.

It's not bad to eat fat. It's not bad to eat carbs(sugars). In the right amounts.

People have been eating fat forever. People have been eating fruit(natural dextrose) forever. I really find fault with point #6. There is a huge logical error in there, I think.
______________________________________
Being a bio major, this BUGS ME:

Glucose and dextrose have the same chemical formula, but they are not the same. They are chemically arranged differently, so no, the main difference is not how the body metabolizes them, but it is the reason it might. So, when someone says glucose, they should mean glucose. When they say dextrose, they should mean dextrose. They are referring to a specific chemical compound. Using one for the other, is dishonest.

The disaccharide of glucose and fructose has a name. It is called sucrose.
______________________________________

Furthermore, people are consuming EVERYTHING in larger quantities, not just fructose.

And pastas are just complex configurations of these monomers.

EDIT: This is how science can be twisted.

And if you don't know your chemistry, you are easily swayed by things that sound good because you're not breaking apart the statement.

songbyrdsweet

You can't say eating fructose is "worse" than eating fat.

It's not bad to eat fat. It's not bad to eat carbs(sugars). In the right amounts.

People have been eating fat forever. People have been eating fruit(natural dextrose) forever. I really find fault with point #6. There is a huge logical error in there, I think.
______________________________________
Being a bio major, this BUGS ME:

Glucose and dextrose have the same chemical formula, but they are not the same. They are chemically arranged differently, so no, the main difference is not how the body metabolizes them, but it is the reason it might. So, when someone says glucose, they should mean glucose. When they say dextrose, they should mean dextrose. They are referring to a specific chemical compound. Using one for the other, is dishonest.

The disaccharide of glucose and fructose has a name. It is called sucrose.
______________________________________

Furthermore, people are consuming EVERYTHING in larger quantities, not just fructose.

And pastas are just complex configurations of these monomers.

EDIT: This is how science can be twisted.

And if you don't know your chemistry, you are easily swayed by things that sound good because you're not breaking apart the statement.

Haha, amen to you too!

When you know your bio/chem/biochem/physiology....this stuff is irritating! And when you don't know it, it's misleading!

lloydrt

well lady, you may have your citings and posts from the latest and greatest research companies, but sometimes its best to talk to an expert

Again, look at some of these folks weight loss , then make your conclusion............

again, you ever know anyone that has gotten morbidly obese eating too many strawberries or blue berries?

Im not an expert, thats for sure ,but fruit saved me...........again, when youre 359 and youre grabbing for some fresh strawberries as opposed to a cake, trust me, the one whos been down that road, you will lose weight

then Id eat vegetables ,then fruit, more fruit, more vegetables, esp brocolli, of which Im not crazy about.............but it would go thru me and keep me regular............that in turn meant pounds lost

then Id increase my exercise program , because I was losing weight quickly........

You can post all you want, but I eat 5 - 6 - 8 servings a day and Im near goal, all within 15 months , so there, care to dispute.? Also, Im no spring chicken , Im 56 and it still came off big time................Best wishes though...........Lloyd

LimeyTart

I'm with Lloyd (WTG, btw, Lloyd. You clearly rock). I consume 8-10, sometimes even 12 servings of fruit a day (plus 5+ servings of veggies) and I've knocked off 57 pounds in 5 months. YMMV, of course, but fruit certainly hasn't "kept me fat", in fact, it's helped make me thin.

crysofmyk

Fresh, whole, foods are ALWAYS going to be healthier for you than highly processed food. Eating fruit will not make you fat. Eating crappy processed food that your body was not meant to process will.

nisharae

This is just something interesting that I noticed.... I eat a lot.... A LOT of fruit.... Especially b/c I try to stay away from processed foods, so if I want a snack, fruit is usually the easiest... So today I am over my sugar by like 66 grams, which sounds horrid right? Well, it does but not when you think that 66 grams was composed of 1 cup of watermelon, 1 banana, 1 cup of strawberries, and 1/3 of a cup of blackberries..... All of that.. Where as, 1 20 oz of regular coke has the same amount of sugar... I just thought that was interesting..... I'll stick to my fruit.. I know this doesn't prove or disprove either way just though the comparison was interesting and relevent for this topic .

McKayMachina

I appreciate everyone who was able to come to this discussion with their personal knowledge and opinions without attacking me or others in the thread directly. I stated that I wanted an informed debate so that we could all learn about this issue. I'm not sure where all the animosity came in but, I should have expected it. It would be great if we could have ONE discussion on MFP that doesn't turn personal and bitter. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks to EVERYONE for providing more info. I have a lot to look into.

bunchesonothing

Sometimes, I think what you're taking for people "taking things personal" is caused in how the initial message is relayed. People will "attack" or say something to someone, when they present information as truth when it appears like they strongly don't have their ducks in row. I personally, believe you did this when you stated, "Things to consider." To me, that means, "Here are some facts, from which we should frame the "fruit sugar debate." The problem, is that the information that you sourced, was not accurate. And honestly, some of it was not even the kind of "up for debate, personal opinion" kind of inaccurate. Some of it was scientifically wrong, which is misleading. You may not have meant to mislead, but, please no offense here, if you don't have science background to understand exactly what you're putting out, you will not know that it is inaccurate. And, I'm very sorry(but this is the truth), but the some of information that you covered, could have been unfurled with some very basic chemistry principles.

People will often say things have gotten personal, when someone is just commenting on the framework within which something is presented. If it's presented one way and meant another, it's not always easy for the reader to understand.

And people will also remember previous posts. Those aren't to be forgotten, especially if they were on the same/similar topics.

If you completely worded a message as intended, and people are just not reading, ehhh... screw em. But if a great many people start to question intent and what you're presenting, and you want to avoid nastiness, look at how your post might have come across.

McKayMachina

@bunchesonothing: You're probably right about most of that. However, if I say "Some things to consider" and you interpret it as something else entirely, there's no possible way I could have predicted that. That's on you.

I've tried a few different approaches to topics in the forum and people mostly just get nasty.

I've seen people post recipes with a quick note like, "Found this on my favorite recipes blog and thought you guys might enjoy!" only to be berated and beaten to a pulp because the recipe included nutrasweet. You just can't win here.

There are instances where saying things like, "some of information that you covered, could have been unfurled with some very basic chemistry principles" just sound holier-than-thou. Like, OKAY...So I don't know these principles if I'm posting contradictory information. Instead of vaguely pointing out how utterly wrong a person is, use the opportunity to enlighten. That sort of phrase doesn't add to the discussion. I, personally, would LOVE to have those basic chemistry principles highlighted.

That's your opportunity to shine and help others grow their nutritional knowledge!

It's cool. I'm over it.

bunchesonothing

@bunchesonothing: You're probably right about most of that. However, if I say "Some things to consider" and you interpret it as something else entirely, there's no possible way I could have predicted that. That's on you.


I've tried a few different approaches to topics in the forum and people mostly just get nasty.

I've seen people post recipes with a quick note like, "Found this on my favorite recipes blog and thought you guys might enjoy!" only to be berated and beaten to a pulp because the recipe included nutrasweet. You just can't win here.

There are instances where saying things like, "some of information that you covered, could have been unfurled with some very basic chemistry principles" just sound holier-than-thou. Like, OKAY...So I don't know these principles if I'm posting contradictory information. Instead of vaguely pointing out how utterly wrong a person is, use the opportunity to enlighten. That sort of phrase doesn't add to the discussion. I, personally, would LOVE to have those basic chemistry principles highlighted.

That's your opportunity to shine and help others grow their nutritional knowledge!

It's cool. I'm over it.

From my perspective, how else was I supposed to interpret that phrase? Seriously. When you post, it's not on me. It's on you, to explain yourself. That's the whole point you're posting to begin with.

EDIT: And if you read some of the other posts, some people took it much the same way I did.

I wasn't vague. I spent a previous post explaining. And I spent time explaining why you were getting the reaction you were, at least in this thread. I was actually as nice as I could be. However, I am not a chem teacher and I can't take the kind time it takes to whip anyone through a chem course. My last one took 18 weeks. If you're going to post chem info and use the lingo, know what you're posting.

My point is, don't expect information based posts to go over well if you haven't vetted the information.

EDIT: Any time I have ever seen anyone do this, it has gone badly. And I have always seen the people who posted the information to proverbially throw their hands up and say, "How is it my fault?" What you post and how you communicate IS completely under your control.

cheshirechic

What I've taken from this, is that my snack hierarchy should be something like this:

Veggies > Fruit > Whole Carby Carbs (air popped popcorn, etc.) > Minimally "processed" foods, etc. (100% whole wheat toast), etc.

(Oops...as in "Veggies are greater / a better snack than Fruit.)

And this is all contingent upon macros, too. Basically, if I'm just hungry and need to cram something in my mouth, and I have very few calories left, it should be raw delicious green beans rather than a mango. Right?

h3h8m3

What I've taken from this, is that my snack hierarchy should be something like this:

Veggies > Fruit > Whole Carby Carbs (air popped popcorn, etc.) > Minimally "processed" foods, etc. (100% whole wheat toast), etc.

(Oops...as in "Veggies are greater / a better snack than Fruit.)

And this is all contingent upon macros, too. Basically, if I'm just hungry and need to cram something in my mouth, and I have very few calories left, it should be raw delicious green beans rather than a mango. Right?

There's absolutely no way you can go wrong eating green beans as your snack. Write that down as a fact!

Unless you're allergic to green beans.

Or you're over your calories for the day.

Or the green bean gets caught in your throat and you choke.

Or....

bunchesonothing

What I've taken from this, is that my snack hierarchy should be something like this:

Veggies > Fruit > Whole Carby Carbs (air popped popcorn, etc.) > Minimally "processed" foods, etc. (100% whole wheat toast), etc.

(Oops...as in "Veggies are greater / a better snack than Fruit.)

And this is all contingent upon macros, too. Basically, if I'm just hungry and need to cram something in my mouth, and I have very few calories left, it should be raw delicious green beans rather than a mango. Right?

There's absolutely no way you can go wrong eating green beans as your snack. Write that down as a fact!

Unless you're allergic to green beans.

Or you're over your calories for the day.

Or the green bean gets caught in your throat and you choke.

Or....

lol

SCC88

An article saying that no bad health effects against Sucarlose have been proven

http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page9.htm

An article stating that Stevia is illegal to buy in Europe and is restricted in the US because it causes infertility and "mutation" :noway:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3230