FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

O.M.G.

Critical thinking skills are seriously lacking, OP.

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.

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.

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.

the entire animal kingdom is addicted to sugar

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.

To ignore the reality that OP is the most vocal proponent of "sugar is bad" on MFP is disingenuous at best.

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.

To ignore the reality that OP is the most vocal proponent of "sugar is bad" on MFP is disingenuous at best.

I am no familiar with the OP (original poster), I was refering to the OP (original post in this thread).

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

I didn't see a link to the full article, but I stated that I was refering to the OP.

you should read it, or at least the parts that she left out which are posted by others on the first page of this thread

Do you have a link to the article?

Oh Joanne, do you think we can't google? Here's another snip from the article that you conveniently left out:

Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.

And here's a link to the article in its entirety, since I have a little thing called ethics:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425

here

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.

This actually isn't entirely true.

Your body still does triglyceride anabolism even when you're in a calorie deficit and losing weight, and some fructose will be converted to fat regardless of whether you haven't met your energy requirements.

When you're in a deficit, the rate of catabolism exceeds the rate of anabolism, but anabolism doesn't cease.