Question about fruit and sugar

this drove me crazy at first because i was only getting sugar from fruit and yogurt and still going over. eventually i just took sugar off my log and stopped tracking it. I know i dont over do it. so i dont even worry about it anymore.

24g is supposed to be refined/added sugar

the sugar in dairy products and the sugar in fruit and vegetables is naturally occuring, if when consumed from whole foods is good for you, however they haven't been able to seperate where the sugar is from in food, so its all listed as sugar, therefore the sugar tracker on this site isn't really relevant. I go significantly over every day from eating whole natural foods.
If your eating unrefined foods not things with lots of refined corn syrup etc, I wouldn't let it bother you.

Thanks for the input!! So now I have another question...is the sugar in protien bars considered good or bad? I eat prob i a day and I do this for the extra fiber and they are easily access because I keep them in my purse for when I'm due for a snack. I'm really excited about the milk thing!! I love to have a glass of milk with dinner but I've been staying away from it too because of the sugar!!1

The sugar in protein bars is added sugar. As long as you're fitting them into your added sugar grams, you're fine.

I had that issue as well. I spoke to a nutritionist friend of mine She is about to finish her masters and is crazy healthy. She basically told me the same thing BrendaLee was saying. Actual fruit, not juice and milk sugars you don't need to count. Everything else like those 100 calorie snacks, Protein bars, pastas, bread you need to watch out for.

Why is added sugar the devil? Just curious.

Ahh, good question. I'm glad you asked.

So sugar is the main ingredient the body uses in the fuel it uses in cells and muscle. The type of sugar the body can use is glucose, all other types of sugar are needed to be broken down and processed.

Glucose is a disaccharide (2 molecules), which means in order for the body to use it, it needs to create it from a monosaccharide or break down polysaccharides into monosaccharides then create the disaccharide.

Sucrose (table sugar, added sugar, processed sugar, refined sugar...etc) is a monosaccharide.

Fruit sugar and milk sugar (fructose and lactose respectively) are polysaccharides.

It takes far longer for the body to break down a chemical bond than it does to create one.

So sucrose (monosaccharide) can be converted to glucose very quickly and easily, but fructose and maltose take far longer to convert, thus allowing the body to burn it slower and more efficiently.

There's also another factor in this, with polysaccharides, you also have fiber to contend with, the more fiber consumed with the sugar, the longer it takes the body to isolate the sugar and convert it. Thus having a fruit with high sugar content is ok as it takes far longer for the sugar to be broken down and used. Milk doesn't have this issue, and thus the sugar in it is not as good for you as fruit, but there isn't a lot of sugar in milk so it's usually ok.

The exception is juice, where the amount of sugar is basically condensed because of the lack of any fiber and the high sugar content in the liquid. Thus even though it takes longer to break down the Fructose into sucrose, you're still ingesting massive amounts of sugar, far more than the body can use at any one time, thus much of it can't be used.

And we all know what the body does with extra energy right? It converts it to fat, glucose that is unused and circulates to the liver is converted to fat and stored.

well one of the reasons added sugars are 'evil' is that in processed foods they usually take the form of high fructose corn syrup.

From above we know that fructose takes longer to process by the body... and when taken in natural quantities thats a good thing, however the reason it takes longer to process is the only organ that initially breaks down fructose is the liver.

So while it takes time to break down, it not only leaves you with high blood sugar levels,but it also over works the liver.

They are not seeing cases of fatty liver syndrome and liver damange/scaring not from over consumption of alcohol or high fat foods, but from excessive amounts of high fructose products.

That is another reason that added sugar is bad. Not discounting what has already been said.

Are you trying to say that you believe people are worrying too much about their sugar intake?

I mean, it's kind of a moot point, if someone wants to track sugar, why make a big thing of it? I mean if you're just upset at the irrational fear of sugar on this (and most other) websites, well, that's pretty much universal in the weight loss machine.

OK, that jibes with me. It just sounded a little like someone was railing against the dangers of sugar (or any macro nutrient). Which is obviously not your intent (I see that now).

And I agree, there is a very strong all or nothing attitude on this (and many) health and diet boards.

You can absolutely be healthy yet still indulge every once in a while. I feel like when someone realizes they can go over or under their calories every once in a while, that is their "light switch" moment, and they can really begin working towards a better life. So I get your premise, and pretty much agree with it, I just misunderstood your intent before.

what kind of fruit juices are we talking about here? big differences between going to the store and buying a jug and making your own at home(and i don't mean from a package!)

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 (exceptions would be after a really serious bout of exercise where you deplete your glycogen stores, like a road race, or a hard core HIIT session)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.