FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

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.

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

I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.

from websters;
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy

I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.

people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589

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

Sugar is not physically addicting. There is absolutely zero evidence that it is. Your arguments please?

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

I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.

from websters;
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy

I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.

people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589

Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.

Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.

Edited for grammar. Yikes.

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

I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.

from websters;
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy

I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.

people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589

Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.

Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.

Edited for grammar. Yikes.

and if animal models are useless then why would people continue to use them in studies? just to *kitten* with rats?

They're useful insofar as they are hypothesis generating, and can be used as a preliminary step to human trials.

They cannot be used to draw direct conclusions about humans.

i agree, but more often than not studies are unable to draw results directly from humans due to ethical reasons/more variables

Jesus. These comments.

The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.

Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.

You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.

This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.

None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.

Jesus. These comments.

The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.

Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.

You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.

This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.

None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.

Jesus. These comments.

The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.

Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.

You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.

This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.

None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.

You aren't good with science, are you?

I'm actually extremely good with science. Its a significant part of how I make my living.

Read the words carefully. Literally. Then scientifically debunk anything in that post.

Jesus. These comments.

The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.

Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.

You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.

This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.

None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.

Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit then

No, fruit is good for you. Keep eating it, as its a rather insignificant source of fructose, in terms of the average diet.

Do some research specifically on the metabolic pathways through which glucose is processed in the body, the resulting compounds of these processes, and the effects those compounds have elsewhere.

Don't choose ignorance.

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.

Jesus. These comments.

The OP was talking about FRUCTOSE. Not generally about sugar.

Fructose is a specific substance, not a synonym for the generality that is sugar. Sugar can be perfectly fine, while fructose can be bad.

You see, people? You can eat sugar without eating fructose. You don't have to instantly go on about "SUGAR" when the OP SPECIFICALLY mentions......*FRUCTOSE*....which is a very specific type of sugar. Not sugar generally.

This topic is about a specific substance: Fructose. Not the entire gigantic spectrum of substances known as sugars.

None of this is about negating calories or the monitoring of them. The problem with fructose is the damage it does to the body, not that it has more or less calories in it.

Fructose does damage to the body? Guess I should stop eating all that fruit then

No, fruit is good for you. Keep eating it, as its a rather insignificant source of fructose, in terms of the average diet.

Do some research specifically on the metabolic pathways through which glucose is processed in the body, the resulting compounds of these processes, and the effects those compounds have elsewhere.

Don't choose ignorance.