fruit sugar vs white sugar...

Options
24

Replies

  • SassyCalyGirl
    SassyCalyGirl Posts: 1,932 Member
    Options
    All sorts of sugar keeps me fat.
    I don't need much more science than that. :wink:

    sugar does not make you fat..eating more calories than you take in makes you fat...

    "All sorts" is much like saying a lot.
    A lot of sugar (generally) means you eat a lot of food.
    You sound like my ten year old that argues with things that don't need to be argued about.
    I eat a lot of sugar and it keeps me fat. I am not wrong. :grumble:

    I took "all sorts" as in all kinds, as in from different sources not "a lot" or quantity. So don't go getting your panties in a wad. Geez
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    All sorts of sugar keeps me fat.
    I don't need much more science than that. :wink:

    sugar does not make you fat..eating more calories than you take in makes you fat...

    "All sorts" is much like saying a lot.
    A lot of sugar (generally) means you eat a lot of food.
    You sound like my ten year old that argues with things that don't need to be argued about.
    I eat a lot of sugar and it keeps me fat. I am not wrong. :grumble:

    all sorts = different king of sugars I.E. candy, fruit, table sugar, etc...

    as opposed to saying the majority of my calories comes from sugar...

    so the way you phrased it is wrong..

    i am not looking for an argument..I am simply stating that eating sugar will not make you fat..I eat sugar and maintain 13% body fat...
  • CooperSprings
    CooperSprings Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    Aw, jeez, never mind.
    I was just writing a light-hearted message to begin with.
    Have a good day.
  • SassyCalyGirl
    SassyCalyGirl Posts: 1,932 Member
    Options
    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
  • becajb
    becajb Posts: 50
    Options
    If I remember correctly, Fructose has 5 carbon atoms aranged in a pentagonal ring. Glucose has 6. (There are a couple other 6 carbon sugars that vary based on which non-carbon atoms are where relative to one another.)

    I love understanding things and pure fact. Thank you!
  • PrettyPearl88
    PrettyPearl88 Posts: 368 Member
    Options
    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: :tongue: Now of course, I'm talking about only one piece that's like an inch wide, not a whole bar of dark chocolate! :laugh:
  • SassyCalyGirl
    SassyCalyGirl Posts: 1,932 Member
    Options
    My belief is that people in general when referring to "good sugar" mean from fruit or in a more natural state rather than "bad sugar" lets say from candy that is processed. I think their real meaning is "better for you" same thing goes for the good vs bad carb argument. Fruit offers vitamins and nutrients that candy doesn't as do whole grain carbs vs more processed (white bread, white rice, white pasta etc.)
    - IMO
  • imryanblank2
    Options
    It doesn't freaking matter.

    Hit your macronutrient goals, mincro goals, fiber and water and you're fine. don't worry about food source.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    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 am with you man ..just frustrating when people say this sugar is better than that..
  • RonnieLodge
    RonnieLodge Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    Sugar is sugar. Granulated sugar eaten from the spoon will have not have the added benefits of any micronutrients that your blueberries will.

    But I agree, there isn't 'good' sugar or 'bad' sugar, just sugar. Some delivery methods just pack more nutritional punch than others.
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options
    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?

    Sugar is sugar to your body. Sugar in fruit isn't healthier than sugar in candy or cakes or whatever.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    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.

    Prob a psychosomatic reaction, as you've had sucrose as recently as friday, according to your diary. whoopsie
  • VeggieKidMandy
    VeggieKidMandy Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    this
  • Warchortle
    Warchortle Posts: 2,197 Member
    Options
    no difference
  • _EndGame_
    _EndGame_ Posts: 770 Member
    Options
    Isn't the sugars from fruit equally balanced out with the rest of the contents you get from the fruit? Ergo, you don't spike your blood sugars like you would from eating a candy bar, something with processed sugars, etc.

    I cut out white bread, soda and chocolate. I cut out near enough all fatty foods, and I don't eat much meat or dairy any more. I eat veg, fruit, fish, oats and nuts.

    I eat fruit for breakfast, I eat fruit as snacks and I often have fruit before bed and I am usually over on my sugar allowance, and I've lost 55LBS. Sugar from fruit, in my opinion, is nowhere near as bad as processed sugars, or candy, etc.
  • celestep2k1
    celestep2k1 Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    Why not buy a cheap meter and some strips to test your blood sugar and find out for sure how fructose and glucose affect you specifically?
  • Joehenny
    Joehenny Posts: 1,222 Member
    Options
    I like both blueberries and dark chocolate. I eat both together sometimes in my gluten free pancakes.

    Refined sugar is problematic for people with diabetes/PCOS/insulin sensitivity issues/candida overgrowth/yeast problems.

    If you don't have those problems, i wouldn't stress about it too much, or stress about why other people avoid it. Not everyone is at the same level of health and some people have more fragile systems than others and need to be more careful with their choices. :)

    Sugar is sugar, but it's what's attached to the sugar that determines the rate of digestion. Refined sugar digests the fastest. Sometimes this is a good thing... like if you're running a marathon and you need energy ASAP because you've depleted all your glycogen stores. My dad likes sugary energy shots for that very reason. My diabetic father-in-law however, should probably stick to the blueberries. ;)

    Any time you consume sugar with other foods (Like we all do) you change the glycemic index and rate of digestion. Science.
  • BarackMeLikeAHurricane
    BarackMeLikeAHurricane Posts: 3,400 Member
    Options
    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 have a bar of dark chocolate with bits of blueberry in it that I get to eat tonight. *drool* ...wait, what were we talking about?

    Sugar is sugar is sugar. Your body can't tell the difference. The only real difference is that only glucose can be efficiently sorted as muscle glycogen. Sucrose and fructose are either stored in the small supply available in your liver or converted to triglycerides.