which is worse, fat or sugar?

mmapags

Your body isn't reacting to the sugar any differently. It is just breaking down a food source and partiioning the nutrients. The sugar is processed the same. If it's from a simple processed source, the partioning is less necessary or not necessary at all. The only possible benefit to "natural sugar" is that they are slightly more nutrient dense.

So, in your opinion, sugars "processed quickly" vs. "processed slowly" are equal reactions and have an equal affect on the body?
[/quote]

The less processed sugar raises blood glucose more quickly. That is not a different reaction. It's the same reaction with a different time context. If you are not a diabetic, are eating in a calorie deficit and are appropriatly managing your macro nutrients, including carbs, it's immaterial.

Again edited to reduce quotes

WendyTerry420

So, in your opinion, sugars "processed quickly" vs. "processed slowly" are equal reactions and have an equal affect on the body?

The less processed sugar raises blood glucose more quickly. That is not a different reaction. It's the same reaction with a different time context. If you are not a diabetic, are eating in a calorie deficit and are appropriatly managing your macro nutrients, including carbs, it's immaterial.

Again edited to reduce quotes

I think that makes sense. I could be wrong, but it seems to make sense to me.

bcattoes

Your body isn't reacting to the sugar any differently. It is just breaking down a food source and partiioning the nutrients. The sugar is processed the same. If it's from a simple processed source, the partioning is less necessary or not necessary at all. The only possible benefit to "natural sugar" is that they are slightly more nutrient dense.

So, in your opinion, sugars "processed quickly" vs. "processed slowly" are equal reactions and have an equal affect on the body?

The less processed sugar raises blood glucose more quickly. That is not a different reaction. It's the same reaction with a different time context. If you are not a diabetic, are eating in a calorie deficit and are appropriatly managing your macro nutrients, including carbs, it's immaterial.

Again edited to reduce quotes

I guess we differ on the meaning of the word reaction. If I take a blood glucose monitor and check my BG levels shortly after eating sugar without fiber, protein or fat it will be different than if I take the same measurement after eating sugar with fiber, protein or fat. Action = eating. Reaction = affect on blood glucose. The difference is that my BG levels will likely never be as high with sugar eaten as part of a good 'package'.

TXHunny84

Your body also needs sugar for brain function. Your brain cannot run on fat, it MUST have sugar to function.

Complex carbohydrates = the "sugars" the body needs, & those can be provided by whole grains. Added sugars - the type they put in yogurts & things to make them sweet, are completely unnecessary to the body.

^^^ THIS! Refined & processed = BAD! Just remember that and you'll be ok.

WendyTerry420

Your body isn't reacting to the sugar any differently. It is just breaking down a food source and partiioning the nutrients. The sugar is processed the same. If it's from a simple processed source, the partioning is less necessary or not necessary at all. The only possible benefit to "natural sugar" is that they are slightly more nutrient dense.

So, in your opinion, sugars "processed quickly" vs. "processed slowly" are equal reactions and have an equal affect on the body?

The less processed sugar raises blood glucose more quickly. That is not a different reaction. It's the same reaction with a different time context. If you are not a diabetic, are eating in a calorie deficit and are appropriatly managing your macro nutrients, including carbs, it's immaterial.

Again edited to reduce quotes

I guess we differ on the meaning of the word reaction. If I take a blood glucose monitor and check my BG levels shortly after eating sugar without fiber, protein or fat it will be different than if I take the same measurement after eating sugar with fiber, protein or fat. Action = eating. Reaction = affect on blood glucose. The difference is that my BG levels will likely never be as high with sugar eaten as part of a good 'package'.

Agreed. Sugar without protein/fiber/fat to slow it down will be a higher BG level.

WendyTerry420

Your body also needs sugar for brain function. Your brain cannot run on fat, it MUST have sugar to function.

Complex carbohydrates = the "sugars" the body needs, & those can be provided by whole grains. Added sugars - the type they put in yogurts & things to make them sweet, are completely unnecessary to the body.

^^^ THIS! Refined & processed = BAD! Just remember that and you'll be ok.

Disagree. There's nothing wrong with simple carbs like fruit.

TXHunny84

if sugar was your mom and fat was your dad, which side would you choose in a divorce?

I choose joint custody because what about cake?

Well...the fat kid eats cake....so I'll agree with the divorce and go with Fat daddy!

TXHunny84

So much misinformation in this thread, it's like Gary Taubes and Robert Listig are having an orgy...

Neither is worse. Neither is better. They both have their places in a diet.

And tracking sugar while tracking carbs also is silly. Do you also track every single type of fatty acid you eat? Or every amino? Or every oligosaccharide? Sugar is a carb. If carbs are in check , then sugar is in check.

Keep it simple.

As for the whole "your body doesn't need sugar" silliness, your brain and your muscles run on glucose. Most of what you eat is NOT converted to glucose. It's difficult for the body to create hormones out of fatty acids if it turns them into glucose first... Or to build muscle and create enzymes out of amino acids if it converts those into glucose first... What does that leave? Carbs getting turned into glucose, of course, the way we evolved to function. Humans evolved eating a high carb (50%) diet. While there is the rare exception (Inuits,) high carb holds true across all civilizations, through all time periods.

This whole "carbs are bad" fad is just as silly as the "fat is bad" fad from the 80's and 90's.

+1

+2

+3

Tenster

Fat is not the enemy!!!!

you eat too much fat then you get fat
you eat too much protein, you get fat
you eat too many carbs, you get fat

Fat has been given a bad name for no reason.

Sugar is far worse due to the hormonal effect it has on your body (unless you have it post workout)

TXHunny84

I say sugar for me only because it's empty calories and it always put me in full crave mode. I was the guy who could get a whole thing of Oreos. I love bacon but I could never eat a whole package of it or anything crazy like that.

My Soulmate! haha I knew I had a twin out there somewhere!! I always thought we'd look the same not eat the same though! hahaha

hanniejong

As a diabetic I have to waqtch the fat content more so than the sugars, although I watch that too.

AeolianHarp

Neither. Next.

Fat is not the enemy!!!!

you eat too much fat then you get fat
you eat too much protein, you get fat
you eat too many carbs, you get fat

Fat has been given a bad name for no reason.

Sugar is far worse due to the hormonal effect it has on your body (unless you have it post workout)

I was with you until the end. Not really true.

tigersword

Your body isn't reacting to the sugar any differently. It is just breaking down a food source and partiioning the nutrients. The sugar is processed the same. If it's from a simple processed source, the partioning is less necessary or not necessary at all. The only possible benefit to "natural sugar" is that they are slightly more nutrient dense.

So, in your opinion, sugars "processed quickly" vs. "processed slowly" are equal reactions and have an equal affect on the body?

The less processed sugar raises blood glucose more quickly. That is not a different reaction. It's the same reaction with a different time context. If you are not a diabetic, are eating in a calorie deficit and are appropriatly managing your macro nutrients, including carbs, it's immaterial.

Again edited to reduce quotes

I guess we differ on the meaning of the word reaction. If I take a blood glucose monitor and check my BG levels shortly after eating sugar without fiber, protein or fat it will be different than if I take the same measurement after eating sugar with fiber, protein or fat. Action = eating. Reaction = affect on blood glucose. The difference is that my BG levels will likely never be as high with sugar eaten as part of a good 'package'.

Ok, now explain why acute blood glucose readings matter to people that are non diabetic? The human body is designed to regulate blood glucose, it doesn't need you to micromanage it, it's an automated system.

lloydscan

TRANS FATS ARE THE WORSE FATS & SUGAR IS EXTREMELY BAD.

ironanimal

TRANS FATS ARE THE WORSE FATS & SUGAR IS EXTREMELY BAD.

Would you like to quantify that statement with, oh, I don't know... some facts? Context?

seabee78

TRANS FATS ARE THE WORSE FATS & SUGAR IS EXTREMELY BAD.

Would you like to quantify that statement with, oh, I don't know... some facts? Context?

Donuts. They are made of fat and sugar. Are they good for you?

Lotsa anger going on here. Seems to me the "sugar defenders" are just taking things out of context. In your new lifestyle, this weightloss journey, do you eat cake? donuts? pies? doublestuff oreos? Hopefully not. Maybe you do if sugar is OK.. *shrugs*

Acg67

TRANS FATS ARE THE WORSE FATS & SUGAR IS EXTREMELY BAD.

Would you like to quantify that statement with, oh, I don't know... some facts? Context?

Donuts. They are made of fat and sugar. Are they good for you?

Lotsa anger going on here. Seems to me the "sugar defenders" are just taking things out of context. In your new lifestyle, this weightloss journey, do you eat cake? donuts? pies? doublestuff oreos? Hopefully not. Maybe you do if sugar is OK.. *shrugs*

You can eat cake, pies, cookies, donuts and ice cream while losing weight and lose just fine

Sarauk2sf

TRANS FATS ARE THE WORSE FATS & SUGAR IS EXTREMELY BAD.

Would you like to quantify that statement with, oh, I don't know... some facts? Context?

Donuts. They are made of fat and sugar. Are they good for you?

Lotsa anger going on here. Seems to me the "sugar defenders" are just taking things out of context. In your new lifestyle, this weightloss journey, do you eat cake? donuts? pies? doublestuff oreos? Hopefully not. Maybe you do if sugar is OK.. *shrugs*

I do......(well not oreos as I do not really like them) plus ice-cream

SideSteel

Donuts. They are made of fat and sugar. Are they good for you?

But we are discussing whether or not something is harmful, not whether or not it's "good for you". These are two different questions.

As far as donuts, my answer is that any individual food item is meaningless without the context of the entire diet.

Lotsa anger going on here. Seems to me the "sugar defenders" are just taking things out of context. In your new lifestyle, this weightloss journey, do you eat cake? donuts? pies? doublestuff oreos? Hopefully not. Maybe you do if sugar is OK.. *shrugs*

Yes, I eat all of the above items and continue to improve my body composition because I understand that the entire diet, as a unit, needs to be aligned with my goals. I can eat the above items and still fit them into my diet. Do I eat a box of donuts? No. Will I eat one donut? Occasionally.

Demonizing an individual food item, an ingredient, or an entire macronutrient is foolish and borders on orthorexic.

AmberJo1984

You definitely need to watch the levels of both... but, for me, I think sugar would be worse. (This is coming from a diabetic though). There is good fat... so, let's hope that's what you're having. But, definitely do watch both.