FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

145791016

Replies

  • HelloSweetie81
    HelloSweetie81 Posts: 55 Member
    Has anyone tried the Hersheys cookies and cream cereal? I'm afraid to commit to a full box without having tried it first.

    Yup. It's pretty tasty.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..
    then your own personal experiences have made you believe that addiction needs to be defined by extremes. doesnt mean that addictions of lesser degrees arent real addictions

    my personal opinion is that by labeling every single thing that people have a problem with an "addiction" is a smack in the face to people who have real problems and real addictions..

    compare a so called "sugar addict" to a hard core oxycodone addict, and you will see what I mean ..

    I know someone that prior rehab would lie to his wife so he can go down the street, meet his dealer, get high, and then come back home and act like everything is fine...

    ever see anyone do that for a sugar fix?
    like i said, these are your personal opinions. ive used this analogy before; if i stubbed my toe and said i was in pain, is that an insult to someone who has been tortured, no.

    you have experience with HIGH DEGREE ADDICTIONS, which sucks, but dont disregard anything else as such just because your own experiences were worse.
  • FrankieTrailBlazer
    FrankieTrailBlazer Posts: 124 Member
    i wouldnt oversimplify the world. Addiction manifests itself in more than one way. There are chronic low dose addictions scaling all the way to acute high dose addictions.
  • SkinnyBubbaGaar
    SkinnyBubbaGaar Posts: 389 Member

    ... sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess.



    Bolded the operative part of the hypothesis there. Pretty much boils it all down to the real culprit being caloric excess rather than any random macro.

    Fats don't make you fat, protein doesn't make you fat, sugars don't make you fat, carbs don't make you fat. It is our excess consumption of any combination of these that is the reason why we become fat.
  • holothuroidea
    holothuroidea Posts: 772 Member
    Thanks for sharing. I love knowing the science and don't see why anyone would think this post was scary or complicated. The process is called gluconeogenesis and the liver is actually involved in the metabolism of things other than fructose.

    Even people who are already extremely fit might want to know more about the way we metabolise food because those who have really low fat percentages and have restricted caloric intake could have problems on the other end of the spectrum.

    Way too many people on this site forget that fitness is more than just weight or muscle tone. Information like this is much more interesting than just repeating the mantra "calories in-calories out".

    Gluconeogenesis is for non-carbohydrates, and has nothing to do with fructose.

    Fructolysis is very similar to glycolosis, the main difference is that the former happens nearly exclusively in the liver. This is a GOOD thing because your liver stores the glycogen your body uses to maintain pretty much every extra-muscular function it preforms. It is also converted to triglycerides for long-term storage in places where it's needed. ALSO a good thing. Your body needs these energy stores to function!

    Your body metabolizes sugars into fats because it needs them in order to survive. Imagine trying to use a computer that had no long term memory source, or a car with only a 0.5 gallon gas tank. We really need to get rid of this idea that anabolism of fat is a bad thing.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,301 Member

    ... sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess.



    Bolded the operative part of the hypothesis there. Pretty much boils it all down to the real culprit being caloric excess rather than any random macro.

    Fats don't make you fat, protein doesn't make you fat, sugars don't make you fat, carbs don't make you fat. It is our excess consumption of any combination of these that is the reason why we become fat.

    And the combination plays no part at all?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,301 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

    totally legit reasoning...

    I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member

    ... sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess.



    Bolded the operative part of the hypothesis there. Pretty much boils it all down to the real culprit being caloric excess rather than any random macro.

    Fats don't make you fat, protein doesn't make you fat, sugars don't make you fat, carbs don't make you fat. It is our excess consumption of any combination of these that is the reason why we become fat.

    And the combination plays no part at all?
    no, but compared to calories in vs. calories out it doesnt in terms of weight loss

    assuming you have a half decent macro split and are eating under you calorie limits, you can eat whatever you want and still lose fat
  • FrankieTrailBlazer
    FrankieTrailBlazer Posts: 124 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

    totally legit reasoning...

    I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.

    The OP is intimating that Lustig has something useful to say which is not the case.

    There is substantial proof that he is an Atkins foundation funded hack spreading misinformation and causing confusion demonstrated thoroughly on the link provided above.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

    totally legit reasoning...

    I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
    she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its bad
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,301 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

    totally legit reasoning...

    I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
    she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its bad

    That remark was talking about the reaction in the liver to fructose, not about sugar in general. The article clearly is talking about the amount of fructose in the average diet today. Context and dosage.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    O.M.G.

    Critical thinking skills are seriously lacking, OP.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

    totally legit reasoning...

    I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
    she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its bad

    That remark was talking about the reaction in the liver to fructose, not about sugar in general. The article clearly is talking about the amount of fructose in the average diet today. Context and dosage.
    have you read the actual article or just OP's post
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    sugar that's eaten in excess of the body's calorie requirements converts to fat
    bears sh** in the woods
    the Pope is catholic



    ETA: this is high school biology... your cells break sugar down for energy:

    sugar + oxygen ----> energy + carbon dioxide + water

    unless your cells don't need that energy because you're eating too much, in which case it's stored as fat. Not just fructose, all sugars (all carbs in fact), and fat, and if you actually manage to eat too much protein, that too.



    ETA #2: if you like high school chemistry, you can get the same chemical reaction much more quickly by burning sugar. It happens more slowly in your cell because of enzymes and stuff controlling the reaction to get the energy out slowly so the cell can use the energy, instead of dying in a mini ball of flames. But if you do that don't forget your safety goggles and to follow the school science lab safety rules or you'll get a detention.

    My post has now gone off topic. The take-home message should be that there's nothing groundbreaking about fructose being converted to fat by the body. It's high school biology. And it only happens when you're in calorie surplus.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,276 Member
    that feel when you have op on your ignore list

    The-Office.gif

    Yep!

    Didn't_read_fgt.gif
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,276 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..
    then your own personal experiences have made you believe that addiction needs to be defined by extremes. doesnt mean that addictions of lesser degrees arent real addictions

    Yep.


    We're all "addicted" to living life, if the definition of addiction is as loose as you want to make it. :wink:


    highonlife21copy.jpg
  • Mikkimeow
    Mikkimeow Posts: 1,282 Member
    that feel when you have op on your ignore list

    The-Office.gif

    Yep!

    Didn't_read_fgt.gif


    AND


    kristen-wigg-lick.jpg
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..
    then your own personal experiences have made you believe that addiction needs to be defined by extremes. doesnt mean that addictions of lesser degrees arent real addictions

    Yep.


    We're all "addicted" to living life, if the definition of addiction is as loose as you want to make it. :wink:


    the entire animal kingdom is addicted to sugar
  • frannieshack
    frannieshack Posts: 327 Member
    There is a HUGE error in the argument going on here, health vs weight. My daughter eats nothing but sugar all day long and is skinny as a rail, is she healthy? NO! She has no energy, is depressed and doesn't sleep at night. I think too many of us are focused on the calorie in, calorie out argument and negate the health aspects of the food we are putting in our bodies. There is a lot to be said for encouraging others to DECREASE the consumption of all these processed foods that we are all hooked on, that is what this OP suggests.