Sugar Doesn't Prevent Weight Loss

AllTehBeers

Because HFCS absorbs more rapidly. It is more bio available. If you think in extremes, many veggies are carbs/fibers (which are very complex carb chains). If you eat them all day long you likely won't gain weight. That is because they take a large amount of energy to digest (they burn calories to absorb) and they can't enter your bloodstream until they are broken down to their most simple molecular structure. That takes a long time, so they enter slowly.

Are you saying if you ate 5000 calories in vegetables you wouldn't gain weight?

AllTehBeers

I would never recommend eating your body weight in celery. Your comparison to pastry involves calories. A calorie is a measure of heat (energy). A donut generates more heat (calories) than a veggie because it is a less complex carb. It also has fat, a different compound, but which is appx 9X more energy dense than a carb. You get fat eating donuts if you do not increase physical activity to burn off those calories because your body does not eliminate those extra fuel units without it. That sugar hits your blood very quickly, your body metabolizes it, and then stores it as glycogen in the liver or muscles or converts it to triglycerides (fat).

You get fat eating more calories then you burn.

betsywalton

You would be hard pressed to consume that, but if you did it would digest much more slowly and you would gain less weight than if you ate those calories in donuts.

betsywalton

Yes and you get fatter faster eating same amount of poor quality food. Pastries are an example.

mmapags

??No protein is not dangerous. It is also not a carbohydrate. Proteins are nitrogen based compounds.

I think his point was that proteins also spike insulin.

fteale

Because HFCS absorbs more rapidly. It is more bio available. If you think in extremes, many veggies are carbs/fibers (which are very complex carb chains). If you eat them all day long you likely won't gain weight. That is because they take a large amount of energy to digest (they burn calories to absorb) and they can't enter your bloodstream until they are broken down to their most simple molecular structure. That takes a long time, so they enter slowly.

Are you saying if you ate 5000 calories in vegetables you wouldn't gain weight?

I think s/he is saying it would be impossible to eat 5000 cals of just vegetables a day as the volume of food would be too high.

xarge

Acg posted graphs showing response of several substances including glucose, triglycerides, and insulin. It shows the response pre and post prandial to meals consumed throughout the day. I agree with you that neither substance is great, my stance, which is correct, is that they are not metabolized the same. Thus, one cannot claim that "sugar is sugar." Similar argument would be to say "salt is salt" but anyone who substitutes NaCl for KCl would disaagree with that. Different salts, different mechanisms of elimination, different effect at the kidney, heart, etc.

The only metabolic difference between HFCS and sucrose (except for the different glucose/fructose ratio of course) that I'm aware of is that glucose and fructose in HFCS is free compared to the bonded form in sucrose, hence you don't need sucrase.

Insulin always follows glucose in a non-diabetic. What happens in Type 2 diabetes is not an insulin problem, it's a problem with cell receptors response to the insulin. The insulin acts as a transport mechanism for glucose to enter the cell, it needs a receptor (like a doorway) to get into the cell. With Type 2, those receptors are not working as effectively as in a non-diabetic. The receptors become "resistant" to insulin because they are so barraged by constant insulin levels attempting to bring down blood sugar.

I'm a bit lost here. Are you suggesting that beta cells still produce enough insulin but insulin inhibits glucose transfer on a cellular level? Yes it does impair glucose transporters but what I've read mentioned more of a decrease in transporter production rather than a resistance.

HFCS is absorbed when it hits your gut--that's why you see kids eating oranges and not candy bars at soccer games for energy--that fructose hits their system NOW and they have energy.

Again, I'm a bit lost. The only difference is that the glucose content of a ripe orange is higher than HFCS. As glucose enhances the absorption of fructose of course a higher glucose content food will be absorbed quickly compared to a higher fructose content one but we're talking about monosaccharides here so it's a matter of minutes. I can't see how kids would eat oranges if HFCS hits the system now. Do kids eat HFCS oranges?

Lady, I'm really lost here. I may be having a blonde moment.

AllTehBeers

Because HFCS absorbs more rapidly. It is more bio available. If you think in extremes, many veggies are carbs/fibers (which are very complex carb chains). If you eat them all day long you likely won't gain weight. That is because they take a large amount of energy to digest (they burn calories to absorb) and they can't enter your bloodstream until they are broken down to their most simple molecular structure. That takes a long time, so they enter slowly.

Are you saying if you ate 5000 calories in vegetables you wouldn't gain weight?

I think s/he is saying it would be impossible to eat 5000 cals of just vegetables a day as the volume of food would be too high.

Realistically, yes. But she isn't giving any context as to dosage or anything. Do we need to pull the twinkie diet link out? Eating some donuts or pasties won't make you fat. Overeating ANYTHING is what makes people fat.

happyfeetrebel1

Obese people can lose weight by sneezing. It's the rest of us (that only have to lose some 30 pounds) that would be negatively effected by continuing to consume so much sugar. Sugar just means you have to burn MORE calories.

If I could have lost weight from sneezing, I'd have inhaled pepper!

/sigh

My weightloss has been a ****ton of work; don't negate that for anyone who are working their *kitten**s off

caribougal

Competing interests:
JM Rippe has received research funding from the Corn Refiners Association for the present
study. The other study authors reported no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions:
JL and JMR wrote and prepared the manuscript, DK, SP, VN and ZY performed regular
dietary assessments and ensured interventional compliance and carried out daily
measurement of study parameters, KJM provided technical and scientific assistance. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding:
This work was supported by a grant from the Corn Refiners Association.

= buy more HFCS from corn!

betsywalton

[quote}The only metabolic difference between HFCS and sucrose (except for the different glucose/fructose ratio of course) that I'm aware of is that glucose and fructose in HFCS is free compared to the bonded form in sucrose, hence you don't need sucrase.

True, and the process by which sucrose catalyzes sucrose breakdown slows the introduction to the bloodstream. Freely available fructose and glucose are more quickly absorbed by the gut.



[quoteI'm a bit lost here. Are you suggesting that beta cells still produce enough insulin but insulin inhibits glucose transfer on a cellular level? Yes it does impair glucose transporters but what I've read mentioned more of a decrease in transporter production rather than a resistance.
In Type 2 diabetes, you do not have an issue with beta cells and insulin production, that is Type 1. Type 2 diabetics make insulin which is the transport mechanism to cells, but there is a problem with getting the insulin to transport to the cell: this is because cell receptors are not functioning correctly. A problem with glucose transport into the cell is referred to as insulin resistance.

Again, I'm a bit lost. The only difference is that the glucose content of a ripe orange is higher than HFCS. As glucose enhances the absorption of fructose of course a higher glucose content food will be absorbed quickly compared to a higher fructose content one but we're talking about monosaccharides here so it's a matter of minutes. I can't see how kids would eat oranges if HFCS hits the system now. Do kids eat HFCS oranges?

A ripe orange is full of fructose, not glucose. The comparison in this example was absorption of sucrose and fructose, HFCS was not part of that comparison. HFCS does not naturally occur in nature, it is man made, and as I mentioned earlier, fructose is the chemical sugar in fruit.
As to your suggestion of a blonde moment, I defer.


Lady, I'm really lost here. I may be having a blonde moment.

xarge

In Type 2 diabetes, you do not have an issue with beta cells and insulin production, that is Type 1. Type 2 diabetics make insulin which is the transport mechanism to cells, but there is a problem with getting the insulin to transport to the cell: this is because cell receptors are not functioning correctly. A problem with glucose transport into the cell is referred to as insulin resistance.

There are also studies that suggest a defect in insulin secretion mostly starting at impaired glucose tolerance stage and progressively increasing to diabetes.

A ripe orange is full of fructose, not glucose. The comparison in this example was absorption of sucrose and fructose, HFCS was not part of that comparison. HFCS does not naturally occur in nature, it is man made, and as I mentioned earlier, fructose is the chemical sugar in fruit.

I'm afraid that's not the case.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/nuttab2010/nuttab2010onlinesearchabledatabase/onlineversion.cfm?&action=getFood&foodID=06B10067

Of course those are just random oranges but most oranges around the world would hold true to them I guess. Sucrose phosphate synthase is activated during ripening so in ripe fruits you (usually with some exceptions like bananas) have more sucrose content anyway. The point I got confused was that you mentioned HFCS and it's fast intracellular transfer and then you mentioned oranges because kids eat that for fast energy. In that case a HFCS is the better choice compared to an orange (not speaking in terms of a healthy diet but purely in ATP synthesis time).

CoderGal

I still say the processed stuff isn't good for you *munching on chocolate* :P

betsywalton

Well said. if it's dark chocolate, it may actually be good for you.

betsywalton

Ah, gotcha. Yes indeed it would travel very quickly

gbtesq

Damn, 43%...so much for crying myself to sleep because an apple turned my MFP sugar number red.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xarge

I still say the processed stuff isn't good for you *munching on chocolate* :P

Of course it's no good for me when you don't share

Acg67

Acg posted graphs showing response of several substances including glucose, triglycerides, and insulin. It shows the response pre and post prandial to meals consumed throughout the day. I agree with you that neither substance is great, my stance, which is correct, is that they are not metabolized the same. Thus, one cannot claim that "sugar is sugar." Similar argument would be to say "salt is salt" but anyone who substitutes NaCl for KCl would disaagree with that. Different salts, different mechanisms of elimination, different effect at the kidney, heart, etc.

Still awaiting on you to actually substantiate this, I'm going to assume by "well beyond" you mean significantly

One of the issues with high fructose corn syrup is that when metabolized, it causes spikes in blood sugar well beyond those of sucrose (table sugar).

Howbouto

LOL my first question when looking at any study is who is funding it

"Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Corn Refiners Association."

Big surprise. This means nothing.

I'll stick with trying to reduce by refined sugar especially HFCS.

YouAreTheShit

Those studies are total bull****e!

Sugar in my body is one study that I have done myself. Science and biological evolution completely play against those studies.

Can you say "Sugar Lobbyists?" Look hard enough and you'll find 'em behind this study. I KNOW IT!