fruit sugar vs white sugar...

The ratios of fructose and glucose are pretty much the same in both fruit and table sugar. Most fruits are 40 to 55 percent fructose (there's some variation: 65 percent in apples and pears; 20 percent in cranberries), and table sugar (aka sucrose) is 50/50. Neither type of sugar is better or worse for you, but your body processes them differently. Fructose breaks down in your liver and doesn’t provoke an insulin response. Glucose starts to break down in the stomach and requires the release of insulin into the bloodstream to be metabolized completely.

Since most any compound that ends in an '-ose' is a sugar, it's wise to understand and follow the research associated with how all these sugars work and what names they are being commercialized under. There's an increasing amount of research concerning the harmful effects of corn syrup based fructose called HFCS for example.

Fructose may cause liver damage, one U.S. study found. Dr Kimber Stanhope, who led the study, explains: ‘Fructose overloads the liver. It then gets turned into liver fat, which then increases blood triglycerides, cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular disease.’ High levels of fructose intake has been linked with the formation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain, which are often seen in people with Alzheimer's. High levels of fructose intake has been linked with the formation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain, which are often seen in people with Alzheimer's

She adds that fructose may also increase the risk of diabetes in this way. ‘The extra liver fat may cause the increased insulin resistance we see in people consuming fructose.’ Insulin resistance is linked to a higher risk of diabetes. Fructose may also make you more prone to obesity. For example, laboratory research by Princeton University this year concluded that ‘long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup resulted in abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen’. Such abdominal fat may raise your risk of heart disease and stroke.

Perhaps even more worrying, research by Cambridge University suggests fructose may be helping to fuel rising levels of dementia. Laboratory studies have linked high intakes of fructose with the formation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brains of animals. These plaques are frequently seen in people with Alzheimer’s.

In response, its makers, the Corn Refiners Association, are trying to rebrand high fructose corn syrup as ‘corn sugar’.
This attempt to camouflage the product has prompted a high-level legal case in the U.S. courts —launched by makers of traditional cane-sugar sucrose who don’t want to be sullied by high-fructose corn syrup’s worsening reputation.

For those of us practicing low carbohydrate programs, we're probably steering away from all sugars anyway, but ingesting products that contain added sugar, or ingesting products that separate the sugar from the fiber and other nutrients (like juicers) may find that this just increases their consumption of sugar (carbohydrates) with all the related issues.

In my own experience, my triglyceride count only went down when I threw the juicer out and realized that even carrot juice simply had more sugar than my liver could process.

Sucrose is C12 H22 O11

both fuctose and glucose are chemically C6 H12 O6

Glucose is a monosaccharide while sucrose is a disaccharide (meaning glucose molecule and fructose molecule stuck together)

Glucose is directly absorbed into the bloodstream while sucrose requires the dissolution of the disaccaride before absorption.

What that means to "how your body sees it" I'm not entirely sure I could answer that question.

Glucose is both water and acetic acid soluable

Sucrose is water soluable only.

Again, the reaction within the human body on which breaks down faster and is used more quickly .... meh.

My opinion from the data is that you, OP, are correct in your assumptions.

It is far more likely that we have demonized table sugar when it is not the table sugar it is the vast quantity and wide spread use of it that is far more culpable.

From a caloric and therefore a 'strictly' weight loss point of view I don't believe there is a difference. If either refined sugar or fruit sugars take you over your calories they will both make you gain weight, you cannot miraculously eat as much sugar as you want just because it came from fruit..... however...... in almost all other ways I personally feel that sugars from fruit are better. This is because it is difficult to see the sugars in isolation. The fruit sugars are more likely to come with 'good extras' whereas refined sugars are often (not always) just used for flavour and therefore may have less inherent benefits.

But calories in, calories out so I guess we all have space for a little of what we like!!

Strawberries dipped in sugar Mmmmmmm!!

I should qualify my original post that I assuming a healthy person that does not have diabetes or any other kind of issue with sugar/carb intake...

Just because someone is healthy now doesn't mean that they can't be proactive in trying to prevent disease. Especially if it's something that runs in their family. It's easier to prevent disease than to reverse it once you have it.

understood..I am just saying for purpose of this thread, we are assuming healthy person with no underlying issues...

Sugar is sugar.

Hitting a punching bag wearing a boxing glove hurts less than hitting it with a bare fist... the cushion softens the blow. It's like bluerries have boxing gloves, and refined sugar is a bare fist.

Well Fructose ("fruit sugar") and Glucose (aka Sucrose, "white sugar") are slightly different at a molecular level. But I don't think that's what most people are -really- talking about.

Glucose is added to a lot of packaged goods (along with sodium and fat) to make them "taste good" but compared to making the same thing from scratch, they're higher in sugar (and sodium, and fat), lower in nutrients, and don't really taste better anyway.

Naturally occurring Fructose in, say, a pear comes along with a host of other nutrients.

So eating a piece of fruit is nutritious, in spite of the Fructose it contains. Eating the same fruit from a can packed in syrup (Glucose solution of some sort) is less nutritious and has WAY more sugar. When you look at it that way, it's not much different to pour honey (Fructose) on your cereal than it is pouring table sugar (Glucose) on it. BOTH tend to be unhealthy when used that way. (Then again, most cereals have loads of added sugar already....)

In my case, it DOES make a difference. I haven't eaten sucrose in five years. I eat fruit every day, several times a day. I tried eating sucrose ONCE, about a year ago. I had such an immediate migraine and gut pain I KNEW that crap was bad for me. Never again.

Fruitarians live on fruit. That Freelee girl from 30 bananas a day eats crazy amounts of fruit and is nowhere near fat. That's a lot of sugar from all that fruit.

But something tells me she would not get the same results if she switched from eating fruit, to eating refined sugar foods like hard candies and beverages like coca-cola.

sidenote: raw vegan fruitarianism is not for me. I tried it a few years ago and got very ill. I thrive on high protein.

pretty sure the OP clarified my point just before you posted.
and my previous post was meant to be funny-I was referring to the mad face you added to your post

White sugar doesn't have the fibre, antioxidants, and vitamins you would get from the blueberry. It will affect your blood sugar/insulin levels differently than a blueberry because of the rate at which the sugar is digested/metabolized. White sugar has been stripped of the vitamins and minerals that the sugar cane actually had before it was processed... like iron. That's why blackstrap molasses is a good source of iron and other trace minerals, but white sugar is not, even though they both come from sugar cane.

If you refined the sugar from fruit, and stripped away all the fibre and vitamins and minerals and were left with just the fruit sugar... it would be just as 'bad' as white sugar.

but I am talking about sugar vs sugar...not nutrients + sugar vs other sugar...

what if you had a blueberry and dark chocolate...dark chocolate has antioxidants in it...so does that put it on par with the blueberry?

I agree with what she said, OP. The thing is that when people talk about "fruit sugar being better than sugar from candy" they usually mean that when comparing a piece of fruit and a candy bar that both have the same exact amount in sugar in them, the fruit is healthier because it naturally has lots of other natural nutrients, vitamins, and minerals as well, whereas the candy bar doesn't.

And I've often heard that because of the antioxidants in dark chocolate, it's actually healthy to eat a tiny amount of it every day. So I'd argue that a small piece of dark chocolate is on par with the blueberry! :laugh: Now of course, I'm talking about only one piece that's like an inch wide, not a whole bar of dark chocolate! :laugh:

It doesn't freaking matter.

Hit your macronutrient goals, mincro goals, fiber and water and you're fine. don't worry about food source.

I agree with David Gillespie's view in 'Sweet Poison' that your body doesn't differentiate and overall that the human body is not designed to handle large, regular amounts of sugar. That it doesn't satisfy us on a physical level.

I also agree with his suggestion that the natural sugar in fruit was not always readily available and is bulked out with fibre to slow our consumption whereas the refined sugar can be slipped into lots of different things in massive amounts.

The difference between, say, eating a 1/2 a kilo of apples or bananas or 1/2 a kilo of sweets. Anyone would struggle to eat multiple apples & bananas in one sitting, but throwing back a few handfuls of gummy bears is easily done.