WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'
Replies
-
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
I love how people don't challenge "accepted wisdom" and then accuse others who disagree of lacking a brain. It's amusing, almost adorable, and completely irrational0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
I love how people don't challenge "accepted wisdom" and then accuse others who disagree of lacking a brain. It's amusing, almost adorable, and completely irrational
Mr. Cranky *kitten*...
:flowerforyou:0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
I love how people don't challenge "accepted wisdom" and then accuse others who disagree of lacking a brain. It's amusing, almost adorable, and completely irrational
Mr. Cranky *kitten*...
:flowerforyou:
:blushing:0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
LOL so anyone who disagrees with you lacks a brain? interesting position ….so you would say that fruit sugar is healthier then added sugar; hence, fruits sugar is good and added sugar is bad, in your opinion?
Additionally, some fruits contain more sugar then some services of ice cream or candy bars…so in those instances is fruit sugar still better?0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:0 -
an apple has 19 grams of sugar..one Milano dark chocolate cooke has 20 grams…which is better?0
-
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
I'm sure the doctors are going absolutely insane trying to communicate with you if you're pestering them for hours. Sorry, babe, but get an education then come back and and try discuss topics like this intelligently.0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...
The facts I've stated here regarding sucrose, fructose, and glucose are completely 100% accurate. So don't try to belittle my education.
The only thing that is incorrect in your opinion is my own opinion of whether or not sugar found in fruit is better than added sugar. You just can't stand the fact that I have a different opinion than you do.0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...
The facts I've stated here regarding sucrose, fructose, and glucose are completely 100% accurate. So don't try to belittle my education.
The only thing that is incorrect in your opinion is my own opinion of whether or not sugar found in fruit is better than added sugar. You just can't stand the fact that I have a different opinion than you do.
still here I see..usually when someone says goodnight, that implies that one is leaving…but lets continue…
for the record, you are the one that said anyone who disagrees with you "lacks a brain"…
and you made a statement about glucose affecting your body negatively and tried to tie it into fruit sugar being more healthy, when in fact fruit sugar contains both fructose and glucose….at that point your argument caved in on itself..0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way
Some people study their way through school, others sleep their way through school. It happens0 -
an apple has 19 grams of sugar..one Milano dark chocolate cooke has 20 grams…which is better?
In for the Milano cookies!
0 -
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
I would suggest a new teacher, or actually paying attention in said class...
The facts I've stated here regarding sucrose, fructose, and glucose are completely 100% accurate. So don't try to belittle my education.
The only thing that is incorrect in your opinion is my own opinion of whether or not sugar found in fruit is better than added sugar. You just can't stand the fact that I have a different opinion than you do.
Sugar found in fruit being better than added sugar is not an opinion...you're just factually wrong...0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
so now you are saying that some fruit is good and some bad ..but all added sugar still bad? your argument is crumbling before your eyes...
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way
My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.0 -
I never did like The Who . . .
Does Roger Daltrey have a sugar problem? Is it just him or does the entire band need to cut their sugar intakes by half?
I don't think Pete Townsend is going to go for this.0 -
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way
My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.
one person agreed with you ….0 -
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way
My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.
one person agreed with you ….
I blame the media for the sugar confusion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/0 -
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way
My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.
I'm not contesting that, I'm contesting the fact that you actually think that fructose from fruit is somehow better for you then fructose that is added to a product. That idea is completely ridiculous. Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, sucrose is sucrose regardless of the source or where it's found. It's a chemical and your body recognizes it as such, it does not recognize the source.0 -
Wow. Lots of fighting.
My host grandfather in the Republic of Georgia (country, not state) always yelled at my host sister and brother when he saw them drinking water. He said it would make them fat. He said water makes you fat. He is a doctor there.
Doctor =/= correct.0 -
No, what I'm saying is each fruit contains a different amount of glucose.
The word "bad" never came out of my mouth so don't try to put it there.
ok lets clarify …so you are saying fruit sugar and added sugar are both the same…? Or one is better than the other?
Natural sugar from fruit is healthier than added sugar. Anyone with a brain knows that. End of discussion.
You're extremely ignorant and that last statement shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...
No idea what I'm talking about yet I go to school for this, spend hours each week with doctors discussing this topic because of my own personal experience with blood sugar problems? Yeah, I have NO idea what I'm talking about. I'm not the ignorant one here.
Have a great night! :flowerforyou:
You're studying this in school and you're still way off? That makes it even worse... For the record, lots of doctor's have no clue when it comes to nutrition. Tons of doctors still think high cholesterol comes from eating foods that are high in cholesterol. Please educate yourself more then you have. Do some research, it'll go a long way
My explanation of why our bodies can tell the difference between sucrose, fructose, and glucose was not "way off." It was spot on. In fact, numerous people acknowledged how spot on it was. You are the one who needs to do research and educate yourself on the topic if you think otherwise.
I'm not contesting that, I'm contesting the fact that you actually think that fructose from fruit is somehow better for you then fructose that is added to a product. That idea is completely ridiculous. Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, sucrose is sucrose regardless of the source or where it's found. It's a chemical and your body recognizes it as such, it does not recognize the source.
amen…end debate0 -
0 -
as long as it is fruit sugar you are fine…fruit sugar is negative calories...So if I'm not fat and not diabetic and get 100+ grams of protein a day as well as hitting my suggested micro nutrient amounts...Can I continue to eat my 100+ grams of sugar a day?
Please hurry with the answer, my cookies and ice cream is literally depending on it.
J/K, I'm totally eating it no matter what.
Psh. As if I'd waste time with fruit.. I need my sugar readily available for my late night workouts, not bogged down in fiber and crap.0 -
What about all the glucose and sucrose in fruits? What about all the fructose in foods that aren't fruits? Fructose certainly isn't the only sugar found in fruits. And in fact, proper metabolism of fructose REQUIRES a hefty amount of glucose, as the GLUT5 becomes saturated with fructose quickly, and fructose hitches a ride with glucose on the GLUT2.In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
Also, how can fructose be completely different than sucrose, when half of sucrose IS fructose (and the fructose in sucrose is digested identically to free fructose.)
Of course, pretty much once a person says "fructose (found in fruits)" I can pretty much esatblish that whatever else that gets said is just as incorrect as that basic statement.
Fructose was named after fruit, it doesn't only exist in fruits, and it's not the only sugar in fruits. In fact, there are many fruits where fructose isn't even the most common sugar. That's basic science.0 -
as long as it is fruit sugar you are fine…fruit sugar is negative calories...So if I'm not fat and not diabetic and get 100+ grams of protein a day as well as hitting my suggested micro nutrient amounts...Can I continue to eat my 100+ grams of sugar a day?
Please hurry with the answer, my cookies and ice cream is literally depending on it.
J/K, I'm totally eating it no matter what.
Psh. As if I'd waste time with fruit.. I need my sugar readily available for my late night workouts, not bogged down in fiber and crap.
lol….good point...0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
It's from over consuming calories in general and becoming obese. Obesity for the most part causes type 2 diabetes, results in insulin resistance, and therefore carbs and sugars must be carefully monitored once you become diabetic. It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.
Ummmmm.......no, it's not that rare. There are plenty of type 2 diabetics that are not obese.0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
It's from over consuming calories in general and becoming obese. Obesity for the most part causes type 2 diabetes, results in insulin resistance, and therefore carbs and sugars must be carefully monitored once you become diabetic. It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.
Ummmmm.......no, it's not that rare. There are plenty of type 2 diabetics that are not obese.
Do you have a number/percentage to quantify 'plenty'?0 -
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
It's from over consuming calories in general and becoming obese. Obesity for the most part causes type 2 diabetes, results in insulin resistance, and therefore carbs and sugars must be carefully monitored once you become diabetic. It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.
Ummmmm.......no, it's not that rare. There are plenty of type 2 diabetics that are not obese.
Do you have a number/percentage to quantify 'plenty'?
you know, like lots0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions