Will you change your sugar consumption after watching the 60

tigersword

I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:

The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.

Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.

This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.

That's not entirely true. Fructose goes straight to the liver, where it's processed into glycogen, fatty acids, and triglycerides, while Glucose gets processed into pyruvate through glycolysis. Fructose doesn't affect blood sugar levels the same way Glucose does. Lactose, sucrose, and the other disaccharides and complex carbohydrates get broken down into the component monosccharides.

And? You get sucrose, glucose, fructose, and galactose from fruit, as well as from cane sugar. The source is irrelevant, because the body processes glucose, fructose, lactose, galactose, sucrose, etc in the exact same way, regardless of what you ate to put it there. It doesn't process fructose differently because you ate fruit instead of a cookie.

While I get the idea that sugar is sugar... I just don't understand it completely... the "ingredients" in fruit (besides the sugar) are different than in a cookie... wouldn't then the different ingredients act and react differently once your body is breaking them down? And isn't the ratio of fructose to glucose different in fruit than it is in table sugar? Wouldn't that make a difference as well... I think the whole idea that "sugar is sugar" is too simplistic and very closely resembles the corn industries argument for HFCS...

I know for myself personally, and I'm using a soda for an example here, that when I drink a soda with cane sugar or beet sugar I don't "feel the need" to drink more and I can drink an 8 or 12 oz can and be done for quite sometime... unlike with HFCS where I crave more...

Well, seeing as the majority of sugar in fruit is sucrose (table sugar) followed by free fructose, then varying amounts of glucose, galactose, and maltose, the sugar in fruit gram for gram actually contains much higher percentages of fructose compared to glucose than you would get in HFCS (which is essentially identical to sucrose, sucrose is 50/50, HFCS is 55[fructose]/41[glucose]/4[other sugars.]) This is why fructose is known as "fruit sugar."

As for the other ingredients, they aren't really all that different. A cookie is held together by starch (flour,) protein (usually an egg,) and fat (butter or shortening.) A fruit is held together by starch (cellulose and hemicellulose,) and some also have proteins and fats (like avocados and olives.) The human digestive system has specific enzymes that are designed to break down certain foods, so when you eat a cookie, specific sets of enzymes that deal with grasses (flour) proteins and fats are deployed to liberate along with the enzymes that break down sugar. When you eat an apple, those same sugar enzymes are deployed, along with a different set of enzymes to break down the starches in the apples. While the specific enzymes may be different, the action is the same.

grinch031

I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:

The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.

Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.

This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.

That's not entirely true. Fructose goes straight to the liver, where it's processed into glycogen, fatty acids, and triglycerides, while Glucose gets processed into pyruvate through glycolysis. Fructose doesn't affect blood sugar levels the same way Glucose does. Lactose, sucrose, and the other disaccharides and complex carbohydrates get broken down into the component monosccharides.

And? You get sucrose, glucose, fructose, and galactose from fruit, as well as from cane sugar. The source is irrelevant, because the body processes glucose, fructose, lactose, galactose, sucrose, etc in the exact same way, regardless of what you ate to put it there. It doesn't process fructose differently because you ate fruit instead of a cookie.

While I get the idea that sugar is sugar... I just don't understand it completely... the "ingredients" in fruit (besides the sugar) are different than in a cookie... wouldn't then the different ingredients act and react differently once your body is breaking them down? And isn't the ratio of fructose to glucose different in fruit than it is in table sugar? Wouldn't that make a difference as well... I think the whole idea that "sugar is sugar" is too simplistic and very closely resembles the corn industries argument for HFCS...

I know for myself personally, and I'm using a soda for an example here, that when I drink a soda with cane sugar or beet sugar I don't "feel the need" to drink more and I can drink an 8 or 12 oz can and be done for quite sometime... unlike with HFCS where I crave more...

Well, seeing as the majority of sugar in fruit is sucrose (table sugar) followed by free fructose, then varying amounts of glucose, galactose, and maltose, the sugar in fruit gram for gram actually contains much higher percentages of fructose compared to glucose than you would get in HFCS (which is essentially identical to sucrose, sucrose is 50/50, HFCS is 55[fructose]/41[glucose]/4[other sugars.]) This is why fructose is known as "fruit sugar."

As for the other ingredients, they aren't really all that different. A cookie is held together by starch (flour,) protein (usually an egg,) and fat (butter or shortening.) A fruit is held together by starch (cellulose and hemicellulose,) and some also have proteins and fats (like avocados and olives.) The human digestive system has specific enzymes that are designed to break down certain foods, so when you eat a cookie, specific sets of enzymes that deal with grasses (flour) proteins and fats are deployed to liberate along with the enzymes that break down sugar. When you eat an apple, those same sugar enzymes are deployed, along with a different set of enzymes to break down the starches in the apples. While the specific enzymes may be different, the action is the same.

Conveniently fiber was ignored here in this explanation. Fiber is Lustig's main argument about why fruit is okay, but HFCS is bad.

tigersword

I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:

The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.

Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.

This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.

That's not entirely true. Fructose goes straight to the liver, where it's processed into glycogen, fatty acids, and triglycerides, while Glucose gets processed into pyruvate through glycolysis. Fructose doesn't affect blood sugar levels the same way Glucose does. Lactose, sucrose, and the other disaccharides and complex carbohydrates get broken down into the component monosccharides.

And? You get sucrose, glucose, fructose, and galactose from fruit, as well as from cane sugar. The source is irrelevant, because the body processes glucose, fructose, lactose, galactose, sucrose, etc in the exact same way, regardless of what you ate to put it there. It doesn't process fructose differently because you ate fruit instead of a cookie.

While I get the idea that sugar is sugar... I just don't understand it completely... the "ingredients" in fruit (besides the sugar) are different than in a cookie... wouldn't then the different ingredients act and react differently once your body is breaking them down? And isn't the ratio of fructose to glucose different in fruit than it is in table sugar? Wouldn't that make a difference as well... I think the whole idea that "sugar is sugar" is too simplistic and very closely resembles the corn industries argument for HFCS...

I know for myself personally, and I'm using a soda for an example here, that when I drink a soda with cane sugar or beet sugar I don't "feel the need" to drink more and I can drink an 8 or 12 oz can and be done for quite sometime... unlike with HFCS where I crave more...

Well, seeing as the majority of sugar in fruit is sucrose (table sugar) followed by free fructose, then varying amounts of glucose, galactose, and maltose, the sugar in fruit gram for gram actually contains much higher percentages of fructose compared to glucose than you would get in HFCS (which is essentially identical to sucrose, sucrose is 50/50, HFCS is 55[fructose]/41[glucose]/4[other sugars.]) This is why fructose is known as "fruit sugar."

As for the other ingredients, they aren't really all that different. A cookie is held together by starch (flour,) protein (usually an egg,) and fat (butter or shortening.) A fruit is held together by starch (cellulose and hemicellulose,) and some also have proteins and fats (like avocados and olives.) The human digestive system has specific enzymes that are designed to break down certain foods, so when you eat a cookie, specific sets of enzymes that deal with grasses (flour) proteins and fats are deployed to liberate along with the enzymes that break down sugar. When you eat an apple, those same sugar enzymes are deployed, along with a different set of enzymes to break down the starches in the apples. While the specific enzymes may be different, the action is the same.

Conveniently fiber was ignored here in this explanation. Fiber is Lustig's main argument about why fruit is okay, but HFCS is bad.

Not ignored at all. You can make and eat cookies that have the same fiber content of an apple. I make oatmeal raisin cookies from scratch (oat flour, no wheat) and they have 3 grams of fiber for a 2 ounce cookie. An average sized apple (about 3 ounces) has about 3 grams of fiber in it. So... they both have fiber. So, the body still processes them both the same way.

grinch031

Conveniently fiber was ignored here in this explanation. Fiber is Lustig's main argument about why fruit is okay, but HFCS is bad.

Not ignored at all. You can make and eat cookies that have the same fiber content of an apple. I make oatmeal raisin cookies from scratch (oat flour, no wheat) and they have 3 grams of fiber for a 2 ounce cookie. An average sized apple (about 3 ounces) has about 3 grams of fiber in it. So... they both have fiber. So, the body still processes them both the same way.

Sure if you create an artificial product that is nearly identical to a whole fruit, then of course it will have a similar effect on the body as the whole fruit. But do food manufacturers do that? No.