Question about fruit and sugar

stroutman81

well, I agree that store bought fruit juice many times has added sugar. But even if you make the juice at home, you are essentially removing all fiber from the product, which makes the process go far faster, which is usually not a good thing

Thanks for your post above in response to my clarification of intentions.

With regards to this quote, what if fiber is already sufficient for the day and the juice is consumed with a healthy dose of protein and fat, thus "diluting" the insulin response and digestive rate?

That's sort of my point regarding looking at things in binary terms - in a vacuum if you will.

SHBoss1673

well, I agree that store bought fruit juice many times has added sugar. But even if you make the juice at home, you are essentially removing all fiber from the product, which makes the process go far faster, which is usually not a good thing

Thanks for your post above in response to my clarification of intentions.

With regards to this quote, what if fiber is already sufficient for the day and the juice is consumed with a healthy dose of protein and fat, thus "diluting" the insulin response and digestive rate?

That's sort of my point regarding looking at things in binary terms - in a vacuum if you will.

it doesn't really matter whether you have your daily fiber or not. The fiber actually locks the starch within it, so when you remove the fiber, the sugar is free to be quickly absorbed. While in some cases having the fiber eaten with the sugar is helpful, not as much has having the fiber in the actual food with the sugar in it, and very little help is gained if they are eaten at different times.
Think of it like one of those timed release cold capsules. The fiber represents the outer capsule, and the sugar represents the medicine inside, if you just took the medicine, it would all be absorbed at the same time, giving you a massive dose all at once, where as when there is fiber, the fiber covering the sugar needs to be removed before the sugar can be broken down and absorbed.

stroutman81

Right. Again, I'm not clearly making my point.

Before I attempt at making a clearer point, can you explain to me two things about your statement:

you are essentially removing all fiber from the product, which makes the process go far faster, which is usually not a good thing

1. What process are you making go faster?

2. Why is it not a good thing?

No point in making a point that's unnecessary, so I'll wait until I hear your response.

Thanks.

SHBoss1673

Right. Again, I'm not clearly making my point.

Before I attempt at making a clearer point, can you explain to me two things about your statement:

you are essentially removing all fiber from the product, which makes the process go far faster, which is usually not a good thing

1. What process are you making go faster?

2. Why is it not a good thing?

No point in making a point that's unnecessary, so I'll wait until I hear your response.

Thanks.

By removing fiber you are essentally allowing the body to start the breakdown and absorbtion of the sugar on all the available sugar, when you have fiber, much of that sugar is locked away until the body can strip it from the fiber in which it is locked up.

As to why it's not a good thing. the human body can only use a certain amount of glucose at any one time, if you allow it to put too much into the blood stream inevitably some of it will be converted into fat. The more sugar in the blood stream, the more fat will be stored. And as I said before, there are some very limited situations where the body needs large volumes of free glucose, but other than those times, you want to keep your blood sugar at a moderate amount, never spiking and never depleting, that's what makes your metabolism feel like it can burn it's normal calories.

BrendaLee

I'll add one more thing- a lot of people who use MFP are addicted to sugar and sweets, and that's why it's always popping up on the boards, and why people are so obsessed with doing all they can to combat the sugar "devil". For me, added sugar is the devil.

stroutman81

Messed up post. Post to come.

stroutman81

In response to SHBoss....

Okay, so now we come full circle to what I'm specifically taking issue with.

For starters, you missed the part in my above example where I said, "what if you're drinking the juice along with protein and fat?" This would have a significant role in rate of digestion and absorption. Sure, as a theoretical model GI (glycemic index) and II (insulin index) are great.

However, once you factor in the way humans actually eat (where various food types are combined), these working models are a whole lot less applicable and useful.

So assuming your premise is accurate, where the speed of glucose digestion and delivery can overwhelm your body's ability to utilize the nutrient and thus it's stored as fat... things are still being viewed in a vacuum. Which is why I asked my original questions....

If someone voids out the fiber by squeezing his own juice... however, he's also eating protein and/or fat with his juice... how do you account for the slowed digestion protein/fat provides?

The point is, you can't say, "Squeezed juice isn't good for fat loss in most instances" without looking at the rest of the diet in terms of nutritional quality and quantity. Which brings me to the big elephant sitting in the corner.

Energy balance.

You state:

As to why it's not a good thing. the human body can only use a certain amount of glucose at any one time, if you allow it to put too much into the blood stream inevitably some of it will be converted into fat. The more sugar in the blood stream, the more fat will be stored.

What do you think happens to that stored fat if the 24-hour calorie balance is negative?

It's true, after a meal insulin blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis and "stuff" will be stored as fat. The problem is even protein elevates insulin above fasting levels, so unless you're eating fat-only.....

And the big glaring hole here is what happens the rest of the day?

What happens if, say, you eat one huge meal full of sugar and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis and all the rest - and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

See where I'm going with this? Acute vs long-term fat metabolism is extremely important when discussing the effects that most people are concerned about.

This goes back to once the essentials are accounted for (proper calories relative to goal, adequate aminos and EFAs, plenty of micronutrition via fibrous veggies, etc)... when it comes to fat loss, what you comprise the rest of your alloted calories with really doesn't matter much.

You could make the argument that filling said calorie allotment with healthier alternatives (compared to processed sugar) is ideal but health and fat loss are not one in the same. And I'd actually agree with reducing the amount of processed crap most people are shoveling down their throats if, for nothing more, the health benefits.

But that's off topic.

Long story short... rate of digestion/storage isn't as simple as looking at one food in isolation as most humans eat a combination of foods at one sitting most of the time which drastically alters said rate of digestion/storage.

Also, what's stored in the short terms matters little when it comes to fat loss once the context of energetic state is provided.

And note, this is speaking strictly physiologically. The psychological aspect opens up a whole other can of worms in terms of "food addiction" as mentioned above, satiety, etc. And the bottom line there is some people can handle processed sugars controllably and others cannot.

I sincerely hope this isn't viewed as some sort of personal attack and that the conversation can continue productively. I've read some of your other posts and you're a knowledgeable guy with respectable intentions. Where I come from, being forced to defend your beliefs will either 1) reinforce them or 2) create doubt, in which case you reassess and either go back to 1) or you learn something. If handled objectively and respectfully, only good can come from it. I hope you agree.

SHBoss1673

They are all good points, but they are actually viewed in a vaccum. And yes, you are correct in that I didn't read your post correctly, never-the-less whether the food you eat along with fruit juice is protein, fat, or fiber, it matters little. It's the fact that the sugars are no longer locked up that's the problem.

When thought of separately, protein, fat, and carbohydrates all are processed separately, but in the real world, sugar that is not locked up in fiber starts being digested well before it hits the intestines (where fats and proteins are digested), and therefor they begin to enter the blood stream well before protein and fat does, thus kick starting the insulin response.
And here's the real world part, the human body does everything by surface area absorption (with regards to digestion), so what surface area of the intestine touches, it can disolve, thus the reason fiber slows down the rate of digestion so much, as a solid, there is no malebility to it (or very little) thus in order to "get at" the things locked in the fiber, the fiber needs to be destroyed first.

I'm not sure what you mean by the following statement

If someone voids out the fiber by squeezing his own juice... however, he's also eating protein and/or fat with his juice... how do you account for the slowed digestion protein/fat provides?

the rate of digestion of protein and fat has very little to do with the absorption rate of sugar from juice for the reasons I stated above. The body is very good at multitasking, it will, in fact, allow solid food to sit in the stomach and intestines and digest all the while absorbing the sugar from juice as well. What you need to remember is because fructose is a sugar already, it is absorbed directly into the blood and delivered to the liver for break down, it doesn't need to be first broken down in the intestines and stomach like protein, or in the gall bladder like fats, this is where the real stuff happens (the liver).

as to the 2nd half (and bear with me, this is a long post so I'm trying to hit everything in concert here)

The body doesn't work on a 24 hour clock. Yes it has circadian rhythms, but even then, the body works in the here and now. Stored fat takes many times as long to utilize as does foods, when the body has any choice at all, it will always try to use food over stored fat. And because the body uses that same surface area premise as above, only the fat layers that are currently available to the blood stream are utilized for energy. Add that to the fact that the body will always attempt to pull unused amino acids from muscle to synthesize into glucose, and you have your answer to the 1000 calorie deficit question.

I.E. if you eat 1000 calories all at once, then don't eat again for 24 hours, but you burn 2000 calories in that 24 hours, the body will use as much of that 1000 calories as it can, and store some of it. Then throughout the day, it will use a combination of fat, stored glucose (in the liver and muscles) and protein. Thus you will never burn the same amount of fat as you ingest if you take it all in during one large meal. This becomes amplified when you take in massive amounts of sugar, because eating high fiber low GI foods takes longer to digest, thus giving your body a constant stream of energy over a longer period, making it easier for your body to "sip" calories from fat stores, and thus requiring your body to sap far less amino acids from muscle tissue.

You mentioned that my reasoning was in a vacuum, but it wasn't, I've spent a long time researching this stuff, and I've looked up a whole lot of real world case studies about sugar and starvation, and the human metabolism. these are generally conclusions I've come to after a lot of careful analysis.


and can I just say, love this discussion! I was a chemistry major in college, and did one of my main papers on glucose (We wanted to do it on alcohol, and my teacher spun it around on us and said "since alcohol is a sugar, why don't you do it on all sugar" well we got caught up on how BIG a topic sugar was and had to settle for just doing glucose).

.

stroutman81

Thanks for the reply. And I'm glad you're unlike the majority of "professionals" who wind up on message boards like MFP. They're typically too hung up on "being right" that they have trouble separating their egos from the discussion at hand.

It's appreciated.

I too, have spent a number of years researching this. I've been in the industry for a decade, have a BS in ex phys, educate trainers via conferences, seminars and consulting in gyms, and most importantly, love spending my free time nerding it up on pubmed and the likes. Doesn't hurt that I have a number of friends who actually conduct and publish nutritional and exercise related research for a living.

Rather than wanking the theoretical side of things, which I do enjoy, I'd like to make this discussion a bit more productive to drive home my original point with an example.

Female
140 lbs
Physically active
BF% = 20%
Goal = Tone up what she has so minor fat loss with muscle maintenance (possible gain)

This is a very typical client of mine.

I would most likely start her on roughly 1600 calories.

From there, I'd set protein at roughly 1 gram per pound of lean body mass which equates to 112 grams. As there's approximately 4 cals per gram of protein (which is likely to change eventually based on what we're seeing in the current literature), protein will account for about 450 of the alloted 1600 calorie total. I pick this amount of protein for a few reasons... primarily:

1. Having a pool of excess aminos floating around in the bloodstream will be preferentially tapped into before our "stored aminos" which we call muscle. Thus, we negate the problem you mentioned in your above post about muscle loss.

2. High protein intakes drive satiety better than most anything else which is heavily supported in the literature.

3. Protein has the highest thermic effect, thus providing somewhat of a "boost" in metabolism... even though it's slight in the grand scheme.

After protein is set, I'll look at fats. I typically like to see 25% of total calories coming from fat. In our example, this would lead to 400 calories of fat (1600 * .25). Of course I'd prefer the vast majority of this to come from the good sources of fat such as fish oils, flax, olive oil, nuts, avocados, etc.

This covers the essentials as far as the macro scales goes - we get our essential aminos and fatty acids covered.

To add to this foundation, I suggest cranking up the fibrous veggie intake to near unlimited amounts. Of course you might find that one person who's way out on the bell curve who'll actually consume too many fibrous veggies to cause a "caloric conundrum," but by and large, most folks can eat these till their heart's content as they'll get full or sick of them before there's to large a caloric blow.

This covers much of our micronutritional requirements as well as most of our fiber requirements, which not only helps with health but also satiety.

I'll also throw a few servings of fruit in per day as it too is nutritionally dense and calorically sparse as veggies are. Plus, the fructose in fruit has actually been shown to do neat things in terms of squashing hunger signaling related to liver glycogen stores.

That, in a condensed nutshell, is the foundation.

After all of this is said and done, of our original 1600 calorie goal, we're left with -450 for protein, -400 for fats, -250 (estimated for average fruit sizes), and -100 calories for veggies.... which leaves us 400 calories.

And this is primarily what I'm talking about here with regards to a vacuum. We can look at anything and everything and it's isolated chemical and biological "destiny" once it has passed our lips But once we provide some context that seems to make sense like what I outlined above, the remaining caloric allotment of 400 calories in this example really isn't going to matter all that much in terms of where it's coming from as it pertains to losing fat.

Calories are set to ensure fat loss.

Protein is set to ensure appreciable maintenance of lean tissue (note, any diet is going to lead to some loss of lean tissue).

The major indices of nutritional health are covered.

etc, etc.

Suppose this is a normal human who's eating 3-6 meals per day.

Let's also assume he/she fills this remaining 400 calories with nothing but processed sugar, which equates to 100 grams of what most would consider junk (each gram of sugar has roughly 4 cals).

So that's 17 - 33 grams of sugar per meal (depending on the number of meals consumed).

Granted, there are healthier ways of filling these 400 calories... but the fact remains, insulin isn't magically going to trap fat when the subject is eating hypocalorically.

So that's sort of the backbone of what I'm getting at. I'd love to hear what you agree and/or disagree with in this example.

As for the specifics of what you mentioned....

never-the-less whether the food you eat along with fruit juice is protein, fat, or fiber, it matters little.

I understand that each of the macros in question (protein, fats, carbs) have unique/individual metabolic pathways. I didn't mean to imply anything but.

That's not the point. What we're concerned with is insulin metabolism as that's the ultimate arbiter as far as glucose storage goes. And that's what we're talking about here, right?

The presence of fat and certain protein foods will lower the insulin response and that's why I mentioned the vacuum analogy. Where one food viewed in isolation may very well raise insulin levels appreciably and quickly... if consumed together with high fat or protein foods, this response will be blunted quite a bit.

This says nothing about the unique metabolic pathways associated with the various nutrients, as that's beyond the scope of this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks again for the discussion.

SHBoss1673

Well, I gotta say, I agree with just about everything you say. And yeah, I exaggerate the point on sugar cuz well... it's a sugar discussion.

But,

I mean, in all honesty our discussion is probably more academic than not. I do agree, if someone eats completely healthy but then adds a glass of juice, it won't destroy, or even marginally impede their progress (you'd have to drink quite a bit of juice to do that I imagine). On the other hand, I feel like it would be a little irresponsible of me to not explain why eating too much sugar is bad if they ask.

Now when I say bad, all I mean is, it's probably not the best choice you could make. I'm under no illusion that adding a few hundred calories in the form of something sweet will kill your diet, as long as you get in the rest of your macros and vitamins and minerals, and you stay at or below your maintenance threshold.

I mean, the thing you gotta remember on these boards is, some of these people are truly desperate, and if someone they respect gives them the green light (perceived of course) to drink juice, I could see them actually chugging 20 or 24 oz of the stuff in a single day. *GULP* that would be pretty bad. I mean, even for the best of us, 120 grams of sugar in a sitting would be just brutal.

Granted nobody should be using these boards as their primary source of info, but some do. That's why I try to read my posts a few times before I hit post. More than once I've caught myself saying things that I know are right in concept, but may be taken wrong by some.

imagymrat

well, I agree that store bought fruit juice many times has added sugar. But even if you make the juice at home, you are essentially removing all fiber from the product, which makes the process go far faster, which is usually not a good thing

Thanks for your post above in response to my clarification of intentions.

With regards to this quote, what if fiber is already sufficient for the day and the juice is consumed with a healthy dose of protein and fat, thus "diluting" the insulin response and digestive rate?

That's sort of my point regarding looking at things in binary terms - in a vacuum if you will.

I have nothing to add....just wanted to say that you LOOK AMAZING!! have any close up of those guns of yours? hee hee..you are one hottie Stroutman! :blushing: :smooched:

stroutman81

Well, I gotta say, I agree with just about everything you say. And yeah, I exaggerate the point on sugar cuz well... it's a sugar discussion.

But,

I mean, in all honesty our discussion is probably more academic than not. I do agree, if someone eats completely healthy but then adds a glass of juice, it won't destroy, or even marginally impede their progress (you'd have to drink quite a bit of juice to do that I imagine). On the other hand, I feel like it would be a little irresponsible of me to not explain why eating too much sugar is bad if they ask.

Now when I say bad, all I mean is, it's probably not the best choice you could make. I'm under no illusion that adding a few hundred calories in the form of something sweet will kill your diet, as long as you get in the rest of your macros and vitamins and minerals, and you stay at or below your maintenance threshold.

I mean, the thing you gotta remember on these boards is, some of these people are truly desperate, and if someone they respect gives them the green light (perceived of course) to drink juice, I could see them actually chugging 20 or 24 oz of the stuff in a single day. *GULP* that would be pretty bad. I mean, even for the best of us, 120 grams of sugar in a sitting would be just brutal.

Granted nobody should be using these boards as their primary source of info, but some do. That's why I try to read my posts a few times before I hit post. More than once I've caught myself saying things that I know are right in concept, but may be taken wrong by some.

It's a pleasure discussing things with you. We seem to be coming from very similar places and have very similar opinions.

With regards to the desperation of some... I truly get that. I've been "an authority" on major diet forums for over 6 years now and have come to realize that people will grasp hold of the words any so called professional dishes out without any objectivity and skepticism.

As you and I both know, that's not way to analyze data regardless of who's presenting it.

And this is primarily why I go on these long diatribes. You're not going to see me give someone "the green light" to drink unlimited amounts of sugar. Rather, you're going to see me educate the "desperate" on why "some sugar" isn't going to make a lick of difference in most situations once you factor in the appropriate context that needs to be given... which I believe you and I successfully did here.

There's a big difference there.

For me, it's about helping people see the big picture.

In my experience, once you lead people to the big picture, it's the equivalent of teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish.

Based on some other threads I've seen you start or participate in, I have to believe you see where I'm coming from.

Thanks for the levelheaded discussion and look forward to communicating with you in the future.

stroutman81

I have nothing to add....just wanted to say that you LOOK AMAZING!! have any close up of those guns of yours? hee hee..you are one hottie Stroutman! :blushing: :smooched:

:blushing:

Thanks!

SHBoss1673

It's a pleasure discussing things with you. We seem to be coming from very similar places and have very similar opinions.

With regards to the desperation of some... I truly get that. I've been "an authority" on major diet forums for over 6 years now and have come to realize that people will grasp hold of the words any so called professional dishes out without any objectivity and skepticism.

As you and I both know, that's not way to analyze data regardless of who's presenting it.

And this is primarily why I go on these long diatribes. You're not going to see me give someone "the green light" to drink unlimited amounts of sugar. Rather, you're going to see me educate the "desperate" on why "some sugar" isn't going to make a lick of difference in most situations once you factor in the appropriate context that needs to be given... which I believe you and I successfully did here.

There's a big difference there.

For me, it's about helping people see the big picture.

In my experience, once you lead people to the big picture, it's the equivalent of teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish.

Based on some other threads I've seen you start or participate in, I have to believe you see where I'm coming from.

Thanks for the levelheaded discussion and look forward to communicating with you in the future.

As do I, keep the faith! And let me know where you got those lats and traps! I want some of those.