FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT
Replies
-
mate this topic made me crave a banana
it was a good banana0 -
Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.0 -
Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time, limited to what? How much is too much? What is an acceptable number of grams for a 135lb female? Stop being general and get specific because generalized information is useless.0 -
http://www.muscleforlife.com/do-fructose-and-fruit-make-you-fat-and-unhealthy/
No, it doesn't.. If you go over your calories you get fat. If you don't have the right composition of macros, then your body composition will not be fantastic... However, if you're at a deficit, you'll lose weight (fat, muscle, could be one or both depending on your nutrition)
You could have twinkies and icea cream but if you're under your calories you'll still lose. You might be skinny fat, but you'll be thinner than you were when you were consuming. Even people on the Paleo diet, which is such a cult now, people have gotten FAT. They didn't consume sugar, but because they overindulged in their calories (fat has 9 calories per gram, whereas protein and carbs only have 4, and sugar is actually a simple carb.. thereby it has the same calories as protein..) have gained weight even though PALEO and "clean eating" are the holy grail in trends right now. Do more research before you post lame threads.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Your body doesn't differentiate between fructose, sucrose, etc. It all converts it to glucose, your body won't be discriminating. Sugar is sugar is sugar when you are talking about weight gain. Calories are calories when you're talking about weight gain. Now, if you want to talk about nutrition, then fructose is your ideal sugar, as it comes from fruit, which has fiber and other nutritional properties, whereas candy is sucrose, and has zero benefit beyond an immediate rush. If you had a teaspoon of coconut sugar vs a teaspoon of white sugar, your insulin response would be quite different, as white sugar, honey, and agave nectar rank a 75/100 on the glycemic index, where as coconut sugar only hits at 35/100. If your concerns are nutritional/health, then you would want the lowest insulin response possible. If your concerns are weight loss, then its all the same regarding calories.0 -
What damaging materials are released into the body?Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.
Why don't we constantly here that fructose is bad for us? Why are we told to eat at least 11 servings of fruits and vegetables?
For the reasons in the post you quoted but apparently didn't read.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Your body doesn't differentiate between fructose, sucrose, etc. It all converts it to glucose, your body won't be discriminating. Sugar is sugar is sugar when you are talking about weight gain. Calories are calories when you're talking about weight gain. Now, if you want to talk about nutrition, then fructose is your ideal sugar, as it comes from fruit, which has fiber and other nutritional properties, whereas candy is sucrose, and has zero benefit beyond an immediate rush. If you had a teaspoon of coconut sugar vs a teaspoon of white sugar, your insulin response would be quite different, as white sugar, honey, and agave nectar rank a 75/100 on the glycemic index, where as coconut sugar only hits at 35/100. If your concerns are nutritional/health, then you would want the lowest insulin response possible. If your concerns are weight loss, then its all the same regarding calories.
I'm not talking about weight gain, I'm talking about health. I'm not saying the calories are different, I'm saying the effect on the body is different in terms of biochemical outcomes. AGE's and triglycerides are released during the process of metabolizing fructose to a massively greater degree than is the case with glucose. Glucose can be directly processed as an energy source by every cell in your body. Fructose on the other hand must first be broken down in the liver by a totally different metabolic pathway, resulting in very different chemical outcomes before it can be reconstructed into glucose. Its a similar process to metabolizing alcohol.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized in the body by completely different processes because they are totally different substances. THAT is the key point that everyone seems desperate to ignore for some reason.0 -
I read it. You didn't say much.
What damaging materials are released into the body?Are we ever going to find out how much fruit I can eat before it hits toxic levels? I had some pineapple this morning, do I need to worry yet?
How many g of fructose can I ingest before it becomes an issue? SOMEONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION BEFORE I EAT MYSELF INTO A DIRE SITUATION!
LOUD NOISES!
Where is Joanne when there is such a critical fructose related issue going on here?! She is practically a fructose doctor! Perhaps you can rush over to her forum and ask your question there. Then rush right back and let us know how long you have before your liver turns to fat. Inquiring minds want to know.
The trouble with all of this is the willful ignorance.
Fructose is in fact bad for you. Its not arguable. It just is. There is no health benefit to eating it. The metabolism of it releases damaging material into the body. This isn't an opinion, its a well understood biochemical reality.
This does not, however, mean anyone shouldn't eat it. The amount of it you get from eating fruit is trivial, and the bad side is massively outweighed by the good.
This whole "fructose must be good because its in fruit!" nonsense is beyond useless. Nature doesn't care whats good for you. Just because meat is fatty doesn't mean fat is good for you. Same with fructose. Evolutionary processes led to fructose in fruit because fructose is very sweet, and thus is the most energy efficient way to entice animals into eating the fruit and scattering the seeds. That's it. Just growing a tree doesn't make something healthy.
The problem is that we're eating WAY TOO MUCH fructose, and sugar generally. The issue with fructose is that compared to another simple sugar, dextrose, which is 100% glucose and thus doesn't have to metabolized in harmful ways, it is in fact more harmful.
To repeat myself for the 3rd or 4rth time in this thread...nobody is saying not to eat fructose. The point here is that it should be limited.
If anyone can find some biochemical pathway through which fructose is shown to be equivalent to other monosaccharide sugars in terms of metabolic end products...please lay it on me, because my old biochem textbooks can't possibly have been outdated in only a few years.
Why don't we constantly here that fructose is bad for us? Why are we told to eat at least 11 servings of fruits and vegetables?
For the reasons in the post you quoted but apparently didn't read.
You said they release damaging materials, what materials?
He won't answer with specifics. He says fructose is bad but says that you don't have to completely avoid it. When asked how much is too much?
*crickets
When you ask what damaging materials?
*crickets
He's big on generalities but not on specifics.0 -
I prefer Lucky Charms. With extra marshmallows. Hold the cereal.0
-
Good god. Just answer the simple questions.0 -
Good god. Just answer the simple questions.
Um. You just quoted the answer. Didn't you read?
I even linked PICTURES in case the words were defeating you.
What else can I possibly do?0 -
t0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Good god. Just answer the simple questions.
Um. You just quoted the answer. Didn't you read?
I even linked PICTURES in case the words were defeating you.
What else can I possibly do?
You haven't told me how many grams of fructose I can ingest. Those links didn't answer that.0 -
Good god. Just answer the simple questions.
Um. You just quoted the answer. Didn't you read?
I even linked PICTURES in case the words were defeating you.
What else can I possibly do?
You haven't told me how many grams of fructose I can ingest. Those links didn't answer that.
That isn't the question you asked, and you know it. You asked specifically which chemicals I was referring to, and I provided you with them. So you decided to move the goalpost and claim you were asking something else entirely.
As to fruit, as a repeated over and over again, you should be eating it. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules on the amount of fructose that a person should be consuming.
As I've said over and over in this thread...and been ignored repeatedly on....I am not saying people shouldn't be eating fructose. I'm saying that we as a society are eating FAR more of it than we used to, and that is has undeniably negative results. We should simply eat less of it.
I've said this exact thing about 5 times in this thread and been ignored every time. I'm sure I'll be ignored again soon.0 -
Good god. Just answer the simple questions.
Um. You just quoted the answer. Didn't you read?
I even linked PICTURES in case the words were defeating you.
What else can I possibly do?
You haven't told me how many grams of fructose I can ingest. Those links didn't answer that.
That isn't the question you asked, and you know it. You asked specifically which chemicals I was referring to, and I provided you with them. So you decided to move the goalpost and claim you were asking something else entirely.
As to fruit, as a repeated over and over again, you should be eating it. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules on the amount of fructose that a person should be consuming.
As I've said over and over in this thread...and been ignored repeatedly on....I am not saying people shouldn't be eating fructose. I'm saying that we as a society are eating FAR more of it than we used to, and that is has undeniably negative results. We should simply eat less of it.
I've said this exact thing about 5 times in this thread and been ignored every time. I'm sure I'll be ignored again soon.
I have asked 6 times now, how much fructose is too much. MrM27 asked about the chemicals.
It's all fine and dandy to tell someone that too much fructose can cause negative health effects but if you can't tell someone how much is too much then the statement is useless.
Will you ever answer? Or does that information not exist?0 -
Ohh Froot Loops, I have two boxes sitting atop my refrigerator right now! They're my boyfriends, he loves them, and he has never, ever been overweight or over fat... Hmmmm.... He also eats cake and sugary carbonated beverages.
One thing he doesn't do is overeat.
I live in the San Francisco area, maybe I can find Dr. Lustig's number in the yellow pages, I think I'm on to something here...0 -
It's all fine and dandy to tell someone that too much fructose can cause negative health effects but if you can't tell someone how much is too much then the statement is useless.
He has explained multiple times why he thinks too much fructose is bad. It increases AGE and triglyceride levels. Theres a lot of research being done whether or not they cause certain diseases.
To mock him like he is some 'avoid sugar, it's toxic" nut (like OP) seems a bit too far. You could say while on a normal diet it's not harmful. Doesn't mean that his statement of the byproducts of glycation being bad is false.
It's an interesting topic actually, deserves better than "so how many apples will kill me".0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Those are interesting pictures. The first one seems to suggest that glucose is turned into fructose inside your cells.
The second looks like fructose and glucose start out different but in the end there's no difference.
And the third one also looks like glucose turns into fructose and does basically the same as fructose with little difference.0 -
Good god. Just answer the simple questions.
Um. You just quoted the answer. Didn't you read?
I even linked PICTURES in case the words were defeating you.
What else can I possibly do?
You haven't told me how many grams of fructose I can ingest. Those links didn't answer that.
That isn't the question you asked, and you know it. You asked specifically which chemicals I was referring to, and I provided you with them. So you decided to move the goalpost and claim you were asking something else entirely.
As to fruit, as a repeated over and over again, you should be eating it. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules on the amount of fructose that a person should be consuming.
As I've said over and over in this thread...and been ignored repeatedly on....I am not saying people shouldn't be eating fructose. I'm saying that we as a society are eating FAR more of it than we used to, and that is has undeniably negative results. We should simply eat less of it.
I've said this exact thing about 5 times in this thread and been ignored every time. I'm sure I'll be ignored again soon.
In fruit the quantity of fructose is small and it is bound to complex plant fiber, nutrients and minerals. Because of this fructose contained in fruit is slowly released into the bloodstream and fruits are considered a valuable protection against cardiovascular disease and other health problems because of their powerful anti-oxidant qualities.
There is no actual proof showing the link in human and the increase in AGEs when consuming whole, unrefined fruits. The studies are on lab rates performed via in vitro with highly refined fructose and HFCS.
You also saying we are eating far to much fruit is your belief, not a fact. I also see nothing anywhere speaking about this whole topic in the scenario of a caloric deficit. None.
+10 -
Everything the OP said is correct about the liver and fructose; however, there is a difference in how the body processes natural fructose found in fresh fruits/raw honey versus industrially produced fructose like high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). People are fine to consume natural fructose in it's natural form.
I started having problems with my liver after my son was born (due to obesity and fructose overconsumption) and realized it was time to make some changes. I stopped consuming all foods with high fructose corn syrup, refined flour/sugar. I run 3 times a week and am training for a 10K. I'm down 72 pounds now.
Thank goodness for stores like Trader Joes that don't use HFCS in their products because 80% of foods in the middle aisles of the regular grocery store contain HFCS. It's definitely the reason why NAFLD and obesity are becoming an epidemic in America.
If you've ever had high liver counts come back on your blood tests you probably have NAFLD due to overconsumption of industrially produced fructose. An abdominal ultrasound can be used to confirm the diagnosis. People with metabolic issues like PCOS are at an even higher risk for the disease.
Below is a link to an interesting talk about the different types of sugar and how they're processed in the liver. The doctor in the video is a pediatric gastroenterologist and he treats kids with advanced NAFLD all the time. He believes this generation of children will be the first one that dies before their parents because of obesity and consuming HFCS. His video changed the way my family eats and I don't feed my son anything with HFCS in it.
I agree with about 90% of what Dr. Aldo says in the video. His discussion on HFCS and how the body processes sugar starts around 29:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuXd0kduO5I 0 -
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.
Your body doesn't differentiate between fructose, sucrose, etc. It all converts it to glucose, your body won't be discriminating. Sugar is sugar is sugar when you are talking about weight gain. Calories are calories when you're talking about weight gain. Now, if you want to talk about nutrition, then fructose is your ideal sugar, as it comes from fruit, which has fiber and other nutritional properties, whereas candy is sucrose, and has zero benefit beyond an immediate rush. If you had a teaspoon of coconut sugar vs a teaspoon of white sugar, your insulin response would be quite different, as white sugar, honey, and agave nectar rank a 75/100 on the glycemic index, where as coconut sugar only hits at 35/100. If your concerns are nutritional/health, then you would want the lowest insulin response possible. If your concerns are weight loss, then its all the same regarding calories.
I'm not talking about weight gain, I'm talking about health. I'm not saying the calories are different, I'm saying the effect on the body is different in terms of biochemical outcomes. AGE's and triglycerides are released during the process of metabolizing fructose to a massively greater degree than is the case with glucose. Glucose can be directly processed as an energy source by every cell in your body. Fructose on the other hand must first be broken down in the liver by a totally different metabolic pathway, resulting in very different chemical outcomes before it can be reconstructed into glucose. Its a similar process to metabolizing alcohol.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized in the body by completely different processes because they are totally different substances. THAT is the key point that everyone seems desperate to ignore for some reason.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/fructose-weight-gain-bad-rap0 -
Now, saying that glucose and fructose are metabolized differently because they're different things is understandable.Everything the OP said is correct about the liver and fructose; however, there is a difference in how the body processes natural fructose found in fresh fruits/raw honey versus industrially produced fructose like high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). People are fine to consume natural fructose in it's natural form.
I started having problems with my liver after my son was born (due to obesity and fructose overconsumption) and realized it was time to make some changes. I stopped consuming all foods with high fructose corn syrup, refined flour/sugar. I run 3 times a week and am training for a 10K. I'm down 72 pounds now.
Thank goodness for stores like Trader Joes that don't use HFCS in their products because 80% of foods in the middle aisles of the regular grocery store contain HFCS. It's definitely the reason why NAFLD and obesity are becoming an epidemic in America.
If you've ever had high liver counts come back on your blood tests you probably have NAFLD due to overconsumption of industrially produced fructose. An abdominal ultrasound can be used to confirm the diagnosis. People with metabolic issues like PCOS are at an even higher risk for the disease.
Below is a link to an interesting talk about the different types of sugar and how they're processed in the liver. The doctor in the video is a pediatric gastroenterologist and he treats kids with advanced NAFLD all the time. He believes this generation of children will be the first one that dies before their parents because of obesity and consuming HFCS. His video changed the way my family eats and I don't feed my son anything with HFCS in it.
I agree with about 90% of what Dr. Aldo says in the video. His discussion on HFCS and how the body processes sugar starts around 29:30.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuXd0kduO5I
But saying fructose is metabolized differently than itself depending on if you made it or got it from fruits is just silly.0 -
It's all fine and dandy to tell someone that too much fructose can cause negative health effects but if you can't tell someone how much is too much then the statement is useless.
He has explained multiple times why he thinks too much fructose is bad. It increases AGE and triglyceride levels. Theres a lot of research being done whether or not they cause certain diseases.
To mock him like he is some 'avoid sugar, it's toxic" nut (like OP) seems a bit too far. You could say while on a normal diet it's not harmful. Doesn't mean that his statement of the byproducts of glycation being bad is false.
It's an interesting topic actually, deserves better than "so how many apples will kill me".
I don't' usually get annoyed but this one is getting close. Why can't anyone on that side of the discussion tell me how many grams of fructose is too much? If you don't have the answer, just say so.
I'll even accept the hypothesis for the time being, that too much fructose is harmful to the human body. Now, at what level of intake does it become harmful?
I'll award over 9000 internet cookies if someone can give me a backed up number.0 -
brah...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions