Is sugar from fruits bad for you?

13

Replies

  • kawookie
    kawookie Posts: 813 Member
    Refined sugar and natural sugar have some significant differences:

    Calories in a snickers bar ( 52.7 g)
    250 calories
    12 g of fat
    4.5 g saturated fat
    33 g total carbs
    1 g fiber
    27 g sugar
    120 mg sodium
    4 g protein

    Calories in an apple (medium, 182 g) Note: This apple is 3x heavier than a snickers bar
    95 calories
    0.3 g of fat
    0.1 g saturated fat
    25 g total carbs
    4.4 g fiber
    19 g sugar
    > 1/3 of an apple is about the weight of a whole snickers bar (so an equal amount of apple ~6.33 g of sugar)
    2 mg sodium
    0.5 g protein

    .
    Information taken from snickers.com and googling "calories in an apple"

    The point is that sure, sugar is sugar. However, natural sugar in a piece of fruit 1 g of fruit has 1 calorie. 1 g of sugar has 4 calories. One apple is likely to fill you up without adding significantly to any column but fiber and sugar. A snickers will add to every category and you might still be hungry after the small 52.7 gram bar.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Refined sugar and natural sugar have some significant differences:

    Calories in a snickers bar ( 52.7 g)
    250 calories
    12 g of fat
    4.5 g saturated fat
    33 g total carbs
    1 g fiber
    27 g sugar
    120 mg sodium
    4 g protein

    Calories in an apple (medium, 182 g) Note: This apple is 3x heavier than a snickers bar
    95 calories
    0.3 g of fat
    0.1 g saturated fat
    25 g total carbs
    4.4 g fiber
    19 g sugar
    > 1/3 of an apple is about the weight of a whole snickers bar (so an equal amount of apple ~6.33 g of sugar)
    2 mg sodium
    0.5 g protein

    .
    Information taken from snickers.com and googling "calories in an apple"

    The point is that sure, sugar is sugar. However, natural sugar in a piece of fruit 1 g of fruit has 1 calorie. 1 g of sugar has 4 calories. One apple is likely to fill you up without adding significantly to any column but fiber and sugar. A snickers will add to every category and you might still be hungry after the small 52.7 gram bar.

    Thanks for the analysis--good job! :smile: WHAT you eat is very important to overall success.
  • fatfudgery
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    You are denying the research that strongly suggests the association?

    Between fructose and pancreatic cancer? Yes, I'm totally denying it. People with no idea of how biomedical research works took the Liu et al paper and made all kinds of wrong conclusions from it. Here's a good takedown for us laymen:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/05/fructose-and-pancreatic-cancer/
    There are LOTS of studies which demonstrate a link between the consumption of certain foods and health.

    Well, yeah, but you mentioned specific nutrients in fruit, which I'd be interested in reading more about.
    Check out my thread on the inhibition of angio-genesis.

    Link?
    Ellagic acid in strawberries has been found to be a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis and is therefore "applies the brakes" on cancerous tumor growth. Artificially flavored strawberry soda will NOT have the same effect even if the calories are identical.

    Again, source? I can't find any human clinical studies on MedLine. FWIW, the American Cancer Society's website says the only study on humans so far improved prostate cancer patients' tolerance of chemo drugs, but didn't slow the cancer's progression.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Refined sugar and natural sugar have some significant differences:

    Calories in a snickers bar ( 52.7 g)
    250 calories
    12 g of fat
    4.5 g saturated fat
    33 g total carbs
    1 g fiber
    27 g sugar
    120 mg sodium
    4 g protein

    Calories in an apple (medium, 182 g) Note: This apple is 3x heavier than a snickers bar
    95 calories
    0.3 g of fat
    0.1 g saturated fat
    25 g total carbs
    4.4 g fiber
    19 g sugar
    > 1/3 of an apple is about the weight of a whole snickers bar (so an equal amount of apple ~6.33 g of sugar)
    2 mg sodium
    0.5 g protein

    .
    Information taken from snickers.com and googling "calories in an apple"

    The point is that sure, sugar is sugar. However, natural sugar in a piece of fruit 1 g of fruit has 1 calorie. 1 g of sugar has 4 calories. One apple is likely to fill you up without adding significantly to any column but fiber and sugar. A snickers will add to every category and you might still be hungry after the small 52.7 gram bar.

    I like apples, so I eat them. Of course, I also like Snicker's bars (particularly the ice cream type) so I eat them too. It's a simple matter of focusing on calories and macros, and eating basic whole foods most of the time, but not being afraid to mix in some treats. It's funny though, we all can say it thousands of times and people still don't get it. Keep arguing with success . . .
  • contingencyplan
    contingencyplan Posts: 3,639 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    You are denying the research that strongly suggests the association?

    Between fructose and pancreatic cancer? Yes, I'm totally denying it. People with no idea of how biomedical research works took the Liu et al paper and made all kinds of wrong conclusions from it. Here's a good takedown for us laymen:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/05/fructose-and-pancreatic-cancer/
    There are LOTS of studies which demonstrate a link between the consumption of certain foods and health.

    Well, yeah, but you mentioned specific nutrients in fruit, which I'd be interested in reading more about.
    Check out my thread on the inhibition of angio-genesis.

    Link?
    Ellagic acid in strawberries has been found to be a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis and is therefore "applies the brakes" on cancerous tumor growth. Artificially flavored strawberry soda will NOT have the same effect even if the calories are identical.

    Again, source? I can't find any human clinical studies on MedLine. FWIW, the American Cancer Society's website says the only study on humans so far improved prostate cancer patients' tolerance of chemo drugs, but didn't slow the cancer's progression.

    Here you go: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1107606-inhibiting-angio-genesis-to-inhibit-obesity

    ETA: Just as an informal observation--Steve Jobs was, for many years, a "fruitarian"--he even named his company after his favorite fruit: Apple Inc. Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer. Even the actor, Ashton Kutcher who was hired to play Jobs in the bio-pic said that he tried a fruitarian diet for a time (one supposes that he did it in order to "get into character"). He said that he had to quit it after several months because it was "messing up my pancreatic enzymes". I think I got the quote from Kutcher right but it was something to that effect.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.

    You're a one note musician as always. When you actually have something to show other than pseudoscience, reading into real science in a unique and incorrect way, and an empty avatar, let me know.

    In the meantime, I'll continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 40s. Best of luck!

    ETA: And you probably should read the side of a cereal box sometime. But I know, that would conflict with your world view.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • paleojoe
    paleojoe Posts: 442 Member
    Eat the apple if you like... Eat the snickers bar if you like. If you eat too much of either you are gonna get fat. If you don't you won't.
  • mammamaurer
    mammamaurer Posts: 418 Member
    it can be, like everything eles, if you eat too much of them yes... lol altho if you ask a Fruitarian they will tell you other wise

    also bacon:flowerforyou:
  • mammamaurer
    mammamaurer Posts: 418 Member
    Of sugars, our digestive system can absorb only simple sugars, called monosaccharides. If you break the word monosaccharide into its pieces, mono-sacchar-ide, you'll see mono (one), sacchar (sugar), and ide (class of compounds). So, monosaccharides are a class of compounds composed of single sugars. This class includes fructose, glucose and galactose. These names indicate they are sugars by their -ose endings. These monosaccharides are C6H12O6 molecules of different configurations (thus the different names).

    Humans have evolved to identify fructose as the sweetest of all sugars. Fructose is so named because it is found in fruits, and both words derive from the Latin fructus meaning enjoyment or profit. Fruits develop mostly containing glucose, a less sweeter sugar. Part of the ripening process then converts some of the glucose into fructose, and thus, the fruit turns from a not so sweet, unripened fruit into a sweeter, ripe fruit. Thus, a ripe fruit appeals more to humans than unripened fruit.

    Our bodies metabolize fructose mostly through the liver. Glucose, for example, stimulates the pancreas to produce insulin, which stimulates cells to absorb glucose from the blood. Brain cells use glucose for energy, so a diabetic with low blood glucose can suffer a diabetic coma because the brain loses its energy source. However, the body can produce glucose, and people don't necessarily need to eat foods containing glucose.

    Anyway, there are other sugars called disaccharides and polysaccharides (di- means two, and poly- means many, and I'll let you figure out what class of compounds described by these words). Sucrose is what we commonly called "table sugar", and it's a disaccharide along with lactose found in milk. Polysaccharides is a class of compounds of structures of three or more simple sugars ... what we usually call starches, which we can digest, but also other compounds such as cellulose that we cannot digest.

    Basically, if we can't break a disaccharide or polysaccharide into simple sugars, we can't absorb them. This is one way our bodies tell them apart. We break down disaccharides and polysaccharides using enzymes specifically for that job that are called by the complex sugar they break up. For example, sucrase is the enzyme that separates sucrose into its fructose and glucose monosaccharides. We know this name is of an enzyme because of its ending -ase. A problem suffered by some people is often called "lactose intolerance", when more technically, it's "lactase deficiency". If you guess that lactase is the enzyme that breaks lactose (milk sugar) into its glucose and galactose monosaccharides, then you're right. When our bodies don't produce enough lactase to break down the sugar in milk, we do not digest it, and it passes into the large intestine, where bacteria eat it all up, producing gas in the process, and causing cramps, gas, diarrhea, etc. Nasty. When you see milk in the stores for "lactose intolerant" people, the maker has added lactase to it which has "digested" the lactose into its two sugars. It's partly digested milk, which might sound gross, but really isn't.

    High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is interesting. Corn syrup (at least in the US) is mostly glucose, and not so sweet. HFCS is produced by converting some of the glucose into fructose, thus making it sweeter to our tongues AND easier to digest than regular table sugar (which is a fructose-glucose disaccharide). This is because the sugars are already in their simple form and there's no need to break them down. So they're absorbed somewhat faster than, say, sucrose (table sugar).

    :love: so you took that class to :heart:

    bacon:flowerforyou:
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.

    "...You're a one note musician as always. When you actually have something to show other than pseudoscience, reading into real science in a unique and incorrect way, and an empty avatar, let me know..."

    Ad Hominem much? Do you consider a Harvard trained researcher as a performer of "pseudoscience"? Check out my thread on the inhibition of angio-genesis. I DO NOT read into science, sir. Your insults totally miss the mark.

    "...In the meantime, I'll continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 40s. Best of luck!..."

    And in the meantime, I continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 60's. :love:

    "...ETA: And you probably should read the side of a cereal box sometime. But I know, that would conflict with your world view..."

    I HAVE read them, sir---and they come up quite short compared to natural foods. My favorite parts are BHA and BHT. Seriously, I wouldn't want my dog to partake of those chemicals regularly (even though the government has ruled them GRAS--"generally recognized as safe") :sick: Best of luck to you, as well!
  • fatfudgery
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    Refined sugar and natural sugar have some significant differences:

    Calories in a snickers bar ( 52.7 g)
    250 calories
    12 g of fat
    4.5 g saturated fat
    33 g total carbs
    1 g fiber
    27 g sugar
    120 mg sodium
    4 g protein

    Calories in an apple (medium, 182 g) Note: This apple is 3x heavier than a snickers bar
    95 calories
    0.3 g of fat
    0.1 g saturated fat
    25 g total carbs
    4.4 g fiber
    19 g sugar
    > 1/3 of an apple is about the weight of a whole snickers bar (so an equal amount of apple ~6.33 g of sugar)
    2 mg sodium
    0.5 g protein

    .
    Information taken from snickers.com and googling "calories in an apple"

    The point is that sure, sugar is sugar. However, natural sugar in a piece of fruit 1 g of fruit has 1 calorie. 1 g of sugar has 4 calories. One apple is likely to fill you up without adding significantly to any column but fiber and sugar. A snickers will add to every category and you might still be hungry after the small 52.7 gram bar.

    You're missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing (at least I'm not) that a Snickers bar has the same nutritional profile as an apple, or that they're somehow interchangeable, or have the same amount of calories, or the same metabolic effect. The point is that the sugar in an apple is metabolically the same as the sugar in a candy bar.
  • mrdexter1
    mrdexter1 Posts: 356 Member
    when dieting why would you eat anything that promotes the release of insulin ?

    kind of defeats the object of the diet to spike insulin whose job it is to store excess energy as fat !
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.

    "...You're a one note musician as always. When you actually have something to show other than pseudoscience, reading into real science in a unique and incorrect way, and an empty avatar, let me know..."

    Ad Hominem much? Do you consider a Harvard trained researcher as a performer of "pseudoscience"? Check out my thread on the inhibition of angio-genesis. I DO NOT read into science, sir. Your insults totally miss the mark.

    "...In the meantime, I'll continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 40s. Best of luck!..."

    And in the meantime, I continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 60's. :love:

    "...ETA: And you probably should read the side of a cereal box sometime. But I know, that would conflict with your world view..."

    I HAVE read them, sir---and they come up quite short compared to natural foods. My favorite parts are BHA and BHT. Seriously, I wouldn't want my dog to partake of those chemicals regularly (even though the government has ruled them GRAS--"generally recognized as safe") :sick: Best of luck to you, as well!

    You might want to duct tape yourself to your automobile seat too, because the NHTSA approves seat belts and air bags. And don't get me started on the FAA and the risk of dying in fiery aircraft disaster.

    Risk assessment. You're doing it wrong.
  • Akimajuktuq
    Akimajuktuq Posts: 3,037 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.

    You're a one note musician as always. When you actually have something to show other than pseudoscience, reading into real science in a unique and incorrect way, and an empty avatar, let me know.

    In the meantime, I'll continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 40s. Best of luck!

    ETA: And you probably should read the side of a cereal box sometime. But I know, that would conflict with your world view.

    Dude, you have no idea how ignorant you sound to someone reading through these threads.

    I'm getting stronger, faster and more muscular (for a woman) than before and I'm in my 40s too, but guess what? I couldn't do it while eating garbage. Does that make me somehow inferior to you, muscle man? I'm sure that you think so. Yet, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to determine that healthy food is a better way to fuel one's body than the processed stuff that comes in a box so devoid of nutrients that they have to add a few back just to tout their product as "healthy", even if it's a complete lie.

    Good on you for eating anything you want and everything is perfect. That's not the way it is for ALL of us.

    PS. Oops, I am eating everything I want! Ribeye steak, mushrooms fried in butter, salads, bacon and eggs..... So, never mind.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.

    You're a one note musician as always. When you actually have something to show other than pseudoscience, reading into real science in a unique and incorrect way, and an empty avatar, let me know.

    In the meantime, I'll continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 40s. Best of luck!

    ETA: And you probably should read the side of a cereal box sometime. But I know, that would conflict with your world view.

    Dude, you have no idea how ignorant you sound to someone reading through these threads.

    I'm getting stronger, faster and more muscular (for a woman) than before and I'm in my 40s too, but guess what? I couldn't do it while eating garbage. Does that make me somehow inferior to you, muscle man? I'm sure that you think so. Yet, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to determine that healthy food is a better way to fuel one's body than the processed stuff that comes in a box so devoid of nutrients that they have to add a few back just to tout their product as "healthy", even if it's a complete lie.

    Good on you for eating anything you want and everything is perfect. That's not the way it is for ALL of us.

    PS. Oops, I am eating everything I want! Ribeye steak, mushrooms fried in butter, salads, bacon and eggs..... So, never mind.

    You sound angry. Try some counseling. I hear that it helps people like you.

    ETA: I'm curious about whether Paleolithic man had counselors, carrot cake, fudge, and potato chips.
  • paleojoe
    paleojoe Posts: 442 Member
    So I try to eat a couple apples a day and some other fruit at times, but I notice that I'm usually over (sometimes way over) my sugar allowance for the day and the majority of it is from the fruit. I understand that sugar ultimately turns into fat so I'm wondering if fruit sugar is bad for you and/or will make you fat. And if its not, what makes fruit sugar ok?

    Not sure if this was asked but, is it only sugar that is over or is it sugar AND overall calories that you went over?
  • Lesa_Sass
    Lesa_Sass Posts: 2,213 Member
    Sugar is sugar, whether from fructose, dextrose, or any other source. The difference is that, in fruit, there are tremendous amounts of micronutrients which more than make up for it from a nutritional perspective.

    So do most sweetened cereals.

    Mmmm--no. I have yet to see ellagic acid as an additive to sweetened cereal. Yet it is in certain fruits and is a potent inhibitor of angio-genesis.

    You're a one note musician as always. When you actually have something to show other than pseudoscience, reading into real science in a unique and incorrect way, and an empty avatar, let me know.

    In the meantime, I'll continue to get stronger, faster, and more muscular even though I'm in my 40s. Best of luck!

    ETA: And you probably should read the side of a cereal box sometime. But I know, that would conflict with your world view.

    Dude, you have no idea how ignorant you sound to someone reading through these threads.

    I'm getting stronger, faster and more muscular (for a woman) than before and I'm in my 40s too, but guess what? I couldn't do it while eating garbage. Does that make me somehow inferior to you, muscle man? I'm sure that you think so. Yet, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to determine that healthy food is a better way to fuel one's body than the processed stuff that comes in a box so devoid of nutrients that they have to add a few back just to tout their product as "healthy", even if it's a complete lie.

    Good on you for eating anything you want and everything is perfect. That's not the way it is for ALL of us.

    PS. Oops, I am eating everything I want! Ribeye steak, mushrooms fried in butter, salads, bacon and eggs..... So, never mind.


    LOL! RIGHT! I swear, for the life of me, I do not understand why people are so hell bent on defending crap food. I say take a course in nutrition and learn about the scientific evidence from someone that actually knows what they are talking about. Coursea has them on line for free.

    I have an auto immune disease, when I cut out processed and refined foods, my symptoms went away and my pain levels went down by 50%. Now can someone please explain to me, if there is nothing wrong with chemically laden crap food, why this happened to me? And the whole its in your head thing has been disproven by someone who thought they would pull one over on me and I ended up in horrid pain 45 minutes after I ate it. Then there is the fact that some of our foods are packed with crap that other countries have banned. Well, governments do not just ban products because it was a slow week, they did it for the good of their people, unlike the US government, who does stuff for the good of their pocketbooks.

    I am 45 and thought to be in my early 30s. I look younger now than I did 7 years ago. Cutting all the poison out of my diet is the reason. I also am less concerned about the way I look than about my over all health. I want to be in an Eco Lodge in Sri Lanka in my 70s not sitting in a dr office like I did with my father in law. Every choice we make today, everything we put in our mouth today, is going to impact our lives when we cross over 60 years old. My choice is healthy organs, skin and bones. Not big muscles or a size 2 dress.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    So I try to eat a couple apples a day and some other fruit at times, but I notice that I'm usually over (sometimes way over) my sugar allowance for the day and the majority of it is from the fruit. I understand that sugar ultimately turns into fat so I'm wondering if fruit sugar is bad for you and/or will make you fat. And if its not, what makes fruit sugar ok?

    Not sure if this was asked but, is it only sugar that is over or is it sugar AND overall calories that you went over?

    A complicating factor is that the bodies of obese folk are typically quite efficient in converting high blood glucose into fructose and then on to the problems that fructose creates. According to recent research done at the University of Colorado by Dr. Richard Johnson and his team of researchers, fructose acts as a type of "fat switch" in the body. Johnson goes on to say that it is this way in all species and that it is a "normal" function for animals to search out sources of fructose in preparation for times of food scarcity--such as the winter. As an example, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries in August and also any other fructose source throughout the early fall, such as fallen apples (one reason why they counsel homeowners in bear country to clean up fallen apples quickly, so as not to attract bears). Fructose does two things, it accelerates the deposition of fat and it makes the animal (or human) sluggish. It works just fine for animals that hibernate--not so much for modern humans who have access to plentiful supplies of food the year round. Blood sugar must be controlled at a lower level for those desiring to lose body fat. In general, fructose should be limited to one or two servings of fruit per day and sucrose, which is 50% fructose, should be avoided entirely because it does not carry the benefits of fruit to the consumer. High blood sugar, caused by the excessive intake of sugar and starch in the modern diet, will inevitably lead to the accumulation of body fat, in the absence of vigorous exercise. But excessive intake of calories from ALL sources will also contribute to high blood sugar and then onto the previously mentioned set of metabolic consequences. What is interesting is that a person is MUCH less likely to consume excessive calories when eating a diet of whole foods as opposed to heavily processed food where sugars are stripped out of their natural contexts and consumed by themselves.
  • paleojoe
    paleojoe Posts: 442 Member
    So I try to eat a couple apples a day and some other fruit at times, but I notice that I'm usually over (sometimes way over) my sugar allowance for the day and the majority of it is from the fruit. I understand that sugar ultimately turns into fat so I'm wondering if fruit sugar is bad for you and/or will make you fat. And if its not, what makes fruit sugar ok?

    Not sure if this was asked but, is it only sugar that is over or is it sugar AND overall calories that you went over?

    A complicating factor is that the bodies of obese folk are typically quite efficient in converting high blood glucose into fructose and then on to the problems that fructose creates. According to recent research done at the University of Colorado by Dr. Richard Johnson and his team of researchers, fructose acts as a type of "fat switch" in the body. Johnson goes on to say that it is this way in all species and that it is a "normal" function for animals to search out sources of fructose in preparation for times of food scarcity--such as the winter. As an example, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries in August and also any other fructose source throughout the early fall, such as fallen apples (one reason why they counsel homeowners in bear country to clean up fallen apples quickly, so as not to attract bears). Fructose does two things, it accelerates the deposition of fat and it makes the animal (or human) sluggish. It works just fine for animals that hibernate--not so much for modern humans who have access to plentiful supplies of food the year round. Blood sugar must be controlled at a lower level for those desiring to lose body fat. In general, fructose should be limited to one or two servings of fruit per day and sucrose, which is 50% fructose, should be avoided entirely because it does not carry the benefits of fruit to the consumer. High blood sugar, caused by the excessive intake of sugar and starch in the modern diet, will inevitably lead to the accumulation of body fat, in the absence of vigorous exercise. But excessive intake of calories from ALL sources will also contribute to high blood sugar and then onto the previously mentioned set of metabolic consequences. What is interesting is that a person is MUCH less likely to consume excessive calories when eating a diet of whole foods as opposed to heavily processed food where sugars are stripped out of their natural contexts and consumed by themselves.

    So is that a yes or a no...
    ;)
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    So I try to eat a couple apples a day and some other fruit at times, but I notice that I'm usually over (sometimes way over) my sugar allowance for the day and the majority of it is from the fruit. I understand that sugar ultimately turns into fat so I'm wondering if fruit sugar is bad for you and/or will make you fat. And if its not, what makes fruit sugar ok?

    Not sure if this was asked but, is it only sugar that is over or is it sugar AND overall calories that you went over?

    A complicating factor is that the bodies of obese folk are typically quite efficient in converting high blood glucose into fructose and then on to the problems that fructose creates. According to recent research done at the University of Colorado by Dr. Richard Johnson and his team of researchers, fructose acts as a type of "fat switch" in the body. Johnson goes on to say that it is this way in all species and that it is a "normal" function for animals to search out sources of fructose in preparation for times of food scarcity--such as the winter. As an example, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries in August and also any other fructose source throughout the early fall, such as fallen apples (one reason why they counsel homeowners in bear country to clean up fallen apples quickly, so as not to attract bears). Fructose does two things, it accelerates the deposition of fat and it makes the animal (or human) sluggish. It works just fine for animals that hibernate--not so much for modern humans who have access to plentiful supplies of food the year round. Blood sugar must be controlled at a lower level for those desiring to lose body fat. In general, fructose should be limited to one or two servings of fruit per day and sucrose, which is 50% fructose, should be avoided entirely because it does not carry the benefits of fruit to the consumer. High blood sugar, caused by the excessive intake of sugar and starch in the modern diet, will inevitably lead to the accumulation of body fat, in the absence of vigorous exercise. But excessive intake of calories from ALL sources will also contribute to high blood sugar and then onto the previously mentioned set of metabolic consequences. What is interesting is that a person is MUCH less likely to consume excessive calories when eating a diet of whole foods as opposed to heavily processed food where sugars are stripped out of their natural contexts and consumed by themselves.

    So is that a yes or a no...
    ;)

    Well, it was a kind of yes and no. "Fast" carbs (sugars and starches), because they raise blood sugar precipitously, force the body to respond with "emergency" measures to bring blood sugar down (converting that high blood glucose into fats to be stored in the fat cells). "Slower" carbs (that is, carbohydrates that are mediated by fiber and fluid) will not raise blood sugar as quickly, because the body must work at extracting the carbohydrates and other nutrients over a longer time period. But it is important to realize that TOTAL calories is important too. A heavy meal, no matter what it is composed of, will raise blood sugar over time and contribute to the storage of excess blood glucose as fat. What has been observed however, is that those who eat mostly proteins and fats almost inevitably limit their calories as well. That is a primary reason why Atkins and Paleo diets work.

    But the hormones of fat storage and fat burning respond to changing the components of the diet because of complex bio-chemical interactions. (See the thread on how certain types of food inhibit angiogenesis which is thought to have a bearing on obesity.) The seriously obese are fighting against that biochemistry which is influenced by the fact that most seriously obese folk are quite "addicted" to "fast" carbs. They almost always have seriously aberrant fat storage and fat burning hormones in addition to having altered sensitivity to them. Such hormones as adiponectin, insulin, and leptin just don't work properly in the seriously obese--especially not in obese women because of the additional influence of estrogen/progesterone (estrogen promotes fat storage, progesterone promotes fat burning because of their influence on the use of thyroid hormone at a cellular level) imbalance caused by the additional estrogen put out by their fat cells. Exercise is also important because it too influences the hormones of metabolism and deposition and also because exercise directly reduces blood glucose levels.. But there are two barriers to exercise that operate for the obese. Their chronically elevated blood sugar causes them to be sluggish and the load on their joints discourages them from exercise.

    The bottom line is that those with 20-30 pounds to lose will respond adequately to any restriction of calories but the obese must work to keep their blood sugar down in order to lose body fat. What will often happen with obese folk is that they refuse to change the composition of their diet or exercise and just rely on calorie restriction alone. The calorie restriction and lack of exercise usually results in at least as much loss of lean body mass as body fat and puts them further behind when the nearly inevitable happens: They stop dieting and go to gorging on the "fast" carbs that they are addicted to--the end result is that they are worse off than when they began their diet.
  • paleojoe
    paleojoe Posts: 442 Member
    The bottom line is that those with 20-30 pounds to lose will respond adequately to any restriction of calories but the obese must work to keep their blood sugar down in order to lose body fat. What will often happen with obese folk is that they refuse to change the composition of their diet or exercise and just rely on calorie restriction alone. The calorie restriction and lack of exercise usually results in at least as much loss of lean body mass as body fat and puts them further behind when the nearly inevitable happens: They stop dieting and go to gorging on the "fast" carbs that they are addicted to--the end result is that they are worse off than when they began their diet.

    The OP has 58 lbs to go. Would you consider her obese?
  • MellieCc
    MellieCc Posts: 26 Member
    bump for later
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    The bottom line is that those with 20-30 pounds to lose will respond adequately to any restriction of calories but the obese must work to keep their blood sugar down in order to lose body fat. What will often happen with obese folk is that they refuse to change the composition of their diet or exercise and just rely on calorie restriction alone. The calorie restriction and lack of exercise usually results in at least as much loss of lean body mass as body fat and puts them further behind when the nearly inevitable happens: They stop dieting and go to gorging on the "fast" carbs that they are addicted to--the end result is that they are worse off than when they began their diet.

    The OP has 58 lbs to go. Would you consider her obese?

    All depends on her body composition. Does she really have 58 pounds of body fat to lose? A short, small-boned and not very well-muscled woman could be pretty obese while carrying 58 excess pounds of body fat. A woman who is six-feet tall and large-boned and with large muscles might merely be "overweight" with "58 pounds to lose".

    The hormone picture for women, in terms of losing body fat is much more daunting than that facing men. For one thing, women ALWAYS have 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin circulating in their blood AT THE SAME BODY FAT LEVEL as a man. They (women) are MUCH more prone to develop a condition called "leptin-resistance" and I'll explain what that is.

    Body fat does not just "sit there". It is metabolically active and one of the things that it pumps out is the hormone, leptin. So the more body fat you carry, the more leptin you will pump out. Leptin SHOULD cause us to burn more fat and scientists who first discovered leptin thought they were on their way to a mountain of gold because they assumed that supplying obese folk with leptin would cause them to burn body fat (worked in some animal studies they did). But they didn't yet understand that some people (and particularly obese women) are "leptin resistant". Just like being exposed to high levels of insulin produces insulin-resistance over time, so being exposed to large amounts of leptin over time produces a condition where the body no longer responds properly to the leptin. Women are already at a handicap when it comes to loss of body fat because of their female hormones but the leptin-resistant woman finds it extremely difficult to achieve permanent weight loss on mere calorie restriction.

    Another interesting hormone that impacts body fat gain or loss is adiponectin. From ehow.com: "Adiponectin is a protein-based hormone produced naturally by the body that manages fat lipids and glucose (blood sugar). The hormone has direct control over the way a body metabolizes insulin, and so adiponectin is believed to play a key role in the management of type 2 diabetes, although research is ongoing. The hormone is abnormally low in obese people, suggesting a healthy diet may contribute to adiponectin production, and that may, in turn, help prevent people form developing diabetes. Adiponectin also reduces inflammation in cell tissue inside blood vessels and so holds some clinical promise in treating cardiovascular disease." Two more strikes against obese folks. Adiponectin lowers blood sugar but adiponectin levels are "abnormally low in obese people" and inflammation is part of the obesity picture. Obese people have much higher levels of inflammation--probably because their adiponectin levels are "abnormally low". Adiponectin levels can be increased when a person is well-nourished, but we already determined that many obese folk are addicted to the nutritionally empty calories represented by sucrose and white flour (starch). Oh, they fortify white flour, because if they didn't, people would start to develop the major nutritional deficiency diseases--but that does NOT mean that white flour is nutritionally adequate because there are many nutritional substances removed during the milling and bleaching process that are NOT replaced. Would you consider your mouth "enriched" if they pulled out all of your teeth and replaced seven or eight of them with artificial implants? So, obese people are "overfed and undernourished" to start with. Magnesium for example, which is widely available in vegetables and fruits, is in short supply in the diets of obese folk. And magnesium is essential to the production of not only adiponectin but for intracellular energy transport through adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP). Interestingly, the metabolism of fructose (we're back to talking about sugar again) "uses up" a lot of ATP. Obese folk do not ordinarily "pig out" on fruit--in fact, in examining the food diaries of some morbidly obese people, you see a singular lack of fruit in their diet. But they eat massive quantities of sugar (which is, remember, 50% fructose). The greatest single exposure to fructose in the standard diet is through sugar consumption. Processed food is typically loaded with sugar.

    And don't forget that the "female" hormone, estrogen, which is not only supplied by a woman's ovaries but her fat cells as well, blunt the effect of thyroid hormone at a cellular level. In addition, xenoestrogens (chemical pollutants that act like estrogen in the body) in the environment contribute further to the problem.

    Eating nourishing whole foods is VERY important to the process of losing body fat for the obese. Very few people have the ability to burn calories at the rate of high performance athletes so they must make every calorie count, if they are going to stay healthy while on a program to lose body fat. All of this adds up to: Yes, the sugar in fruits is bad for you, if you are trying to shed body fat, BUT the amount is small in whole fruits and the nutritional benefits are so strong that fruit is a good thing to eat in moderation. But sugar and particularly high fructose corn syrup, is a no-no for the obese woman for all the reasons I have outlined. The amount of fructose in one can of orange soda is equivalent to the amount of fructose in 10 to 12 oranges. I don't know anyone who sits down to eat a dozen oranges but it is easy to quaff a can of orange soda.

    And this doesn't even begin to cover the topic of enhanced angiogenesis in those who eat virtually no whole fruits or vegetables (such as the morbidly obese). (See my thread on angio-genesis.)
  • Lesa_Sass
    Lesa_Sass Posts: 2,213 Member
    The bottom line is that those with 20-30 pounds to lose will respond adequately to any restriction of calories but the obese must work to keep their blood sugar down in order to lose body fat. What will often happen with obese folk is that they refuse to change the composition of their diet or exercise and just rely on calorie restriction alone. The calorie restriction and lack of exercise usually results in at least as much loss of lean body mass as body fat and puts them further behind when the nearly inevitable happens: They stop dieting and go to gorging on the "fast" carbs that they are addicted to--the end result is that they are worse off than when they began their diet.

    The OP has 58 lbs to go. Would you consider her obese?

    All depends on her body composition. Does she really have 58 pounds of body fat to lose? A short, small-boned and not very well-muscled woman could be pretty obese while carrying 58 excess pounds of body fat. A woman who is six-feet tall and large-boned and with large muscles might merely be "overweight" with "58 pounds to lose".

    The hormone picture for women, in terms of losing body fat is much more daunting than that facing men. For one thing, women ALWAYS have 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin circulating in their blood AT THE SAME BODY FAT LEVEL as a man. They (women) are MUCH more prone to develop a condition called "leptin-resistance" and I'll explain what that is.

    Body fat does not just "sit there". It is metabolically active and one of the things that it pumps out is the hormone, leptin. So the more body fat you carry, the more leptin you will pump out. Leptin SHOULD cause us to burn more fat and scientists who first discovered leptin thought they were on their way to a mountain of gold because they assumed that supplying obese folk with leptin would cause them to burn body fat (worked in some animal studies they did). But they didn't yet understand that some people (and particularly obese women) are "leptin resistant". Just like being exposed to high levels of insulin produces insulin-resistance over time, so being exposed to large amounts of leptin over time produces a condition where the body no longer responds properly to the leptin. Women are already at a handicap when it comes to loss of body fat because of their female hormones but the leptin-resistant woman finds it extremely difficult to achieve permanent weight loss on mere calorie restriction.

    Another interesting hormone that impacts body fat gain or loss is adiponectin. From ehow.com: "Adiponectin is a protein-based hormone produced naturally by the body that manages fat lipids and glucose (blood sugar). The hormone has direct control over the way a body metabolizes insulin, and so adiponectin is believed to play a key role in the management of type 2 diabetes, although research is ongoing. The hormone is abnormally low in obese people, suggesting a healthy diet may contribute to adiponectin production, and that may, in turn, help prevent people form developing diabetes. Adiponectin also reduces inflammation in cell tissue inside blood vessels and so holds some clinical promise in treating cardiovascular disease." Two more strikes against obese folks. Adiponectin lowers blood sugar but adiponectin levels are "abnormally low in obese people" and inflammation is part of the obesity picture. Obese people have much higher levels of inflammation--probably because their adiponectin levels are "abnormally low". Adiponectin levels can be increased when a person is well-nourished, but we already determined that many obese folk are addicted to the nutritionally empty calories represented by sucrose and white flour (starch). Oh, they fortify white flour, because if they didn't, people would start to develop the major nutritional deficiency diseases--but that does NOT mean that white flour is nutritionally adequate because there are many nutritional substances removed during the milling and bleaching process that are NOT replaced. Would you consider your mouth "enriched" if they pulled out all of your teeth and replaced seven or eight of them with artificial implants? So, obese people are "overfed and undernourished" to start with. Magnesium for example, which is widely available in vegetables and fruits, is in short supply in the diets of obese folk. And magnesium is essential to the production of not only adiponectin but for intracellular energy transport through adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP). Interestingly, the metabolism of fructose (we're back to talking about sugar again) "uses up" a lot of ATP. Obese folk do not ordinarily "pig out" on fruit--in fact, in examining the food diaries of some morbidly obese people, you see a singular lack of fruit in their diet. But they eat massive quantities of sugar (which is, remember, 50% fructose). The greatest single exposure to fructose in the standard diet is through sugar consumption. Processed food is typically loaded with sugar.

    And don't forget that the "female" hormone, estrogen, which is not only supplied by a woman's ovaries but her fat cells as well, blunt the effect of thyroid hormone at a cellular level. In addition, xenoestrogens (chemical pollutants that act like estrogen in the body) in the environment contribute further to the problem.

    Eating nourishing whole foods is VERY important to the process of losing body fat for the obese. Very few people have the ability to burn calories at the rate of high performance athletes so they must make every calorie count, if they are going to stay healthy while on a program to lose body fat. All of this adds up to: Yes, the sugar in fruits is bad for you, if you are trying to shed body fat, BUT the amount is small in whole fruits and the nutritional benefits are so strong that fruit is a good thing to eat in moderation. But sugar and particularly high fructose corn syrup, is a no-no for the obese woman for all the reasons I have outlined. The amount of fructose in one can of orange soda is equivalent to the amount of fructose in 10 to 12 oranges. I don't know anyone who sits down to eat a dozen oranges but it is easy to quaff a can of orange soda.

    And this doesn't even begin to cover the topic of enhanced angiogenesis in those who eat virtually no whole fruits or vegetables (such as the morbidly obese). (See my thread on angio-genesis.)


    :flowerforyou:
  • paleojoe
    paleojoe Posts: 442 Member
    The OP has 58 lbs to go. Would you consider her obese?

    All depends on her body composition. Does she really have 58 pounds of body fat to lose? A short, small-boned and not very well-muscled woman could be pretty obese while carrying 58 excess pounds of body fat. A woman who is six-feet tall and large-boned and with large muscles might merely be "overweight" with "58 pounds to lose".

    [/quote]

    I guess until we hear from the OP, we will never know.

    I am with you on everything else... great post!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories