Sugar v. Natural Sugar

Most low carb diets track "net carbs", not just "sugar". Net carbs are (= total carbs - fiber).

This is because the test they use for total carbs can't distinguish between bio-available carbohydrate and non-absorbable carbohydrate, aka "fiber". So the total carbs measurement = bioavailable carbs + fiber, because of the limits of the test.

The bioavailable carbs are the ones that you can absorb that might affect your weight.

I'm not familiar with diets that track 'sugar' itself, so if you are not doing a generic 'low carb' plan, I don't know how your specific diet strategy answers the question.

add: chemically, "sugar" is sucrose. the "sugar" in a banana is a mixture of sucrose, fructose, and probably a bunch of other sugars in smaller amounts.

Sugar (refined or natural) are just carbs. Track your carbs and don't worry about tracking sugar.

^This.

I track fiber in its place. I'm typically over my limit every day *shrugs*

"Table sugar' is natural. There is nothing wrong with added sugar v sugar in fruits etc, other than the fact that it does not contain micronutrients. Sugar in say fruit, comes with the other benefits of fruit - like fiber and vitamins and minerals. I do not bother to track sugar - just try to get a balanced diet - which includes fruits, veggies etc.

Wonderfully said.

Table sugar is a natural disaccharide composed one fructose and one glucose molecule. So it's 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fruits tend to have higher fructose ratios than sucrose. Usually being composed of pure fructose, some glucose, and some sucrose. The ratios vary by fruit. This is similar to HFCS that typically contains 60% fructose and 40% glucose.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. When it enters the body and is broken down into saccharides. The glucose and fructose are handled much differently. In fact, most saccharides go through different routes during processing in the body.

Glucose is most easily used by the body and is stored as the polysaccharide glycogen in the liver and muscles. It goes through many cycles and is easily broken down back into saccharide form and sent/used by other parts of the body.

Fructose, on the other hand, is transported to the liver almost completely. In the liver it is converted to fructose-1-phosphate. Fructose-1-phosphate skips a major glycolysis regulation by phosphofructokinase and is converted to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate by aldolase B, where it re-enters glycolysis.

The important part there is that it skips regulation by a primary glycolysis regulating enzyme (the other being pyruvate kinase), phosphofructokinase. This allows pyruvate to accumulate more readily than in the case of glucose and this allows it to more readily be converted into fatty acids through fatty acid synthesis in cases of pyruvate excess.

(relax, fatty acid synthesis and oxidation occurs every second and if oxidation wins for that time period , then you lose fat)

There is a difference with how your body reacts to every single saccharide (ok, mostly).

That being said, fruit are loaded with crazy-healthy polyphenols and fiber. Fiber slows absorption of the fructose, limiting fructose in the blood, limiting fructose in the liver, slowing conversion to pyruvate, and slowing fatty acid biosynthesis when compared to sucrose (table sugar). Since it absorbs slower, the pyruvate that it makes is more likely to be used by the kreb cycle than fructose (HFCS) found outside of fruit.

So fruits are good. Regardless of what the commercials tell you HFCS is not great and sucrose (table sugar) isn't that bad if your total meal (or previous meals for that matter) have decent fiber content.

Edit: on second look this was probably too in-depth for most peoples interest. I copy and pasted it from my reply for a previous fruit-bashing post.

This isn't a hundred percent true.

Table sugar is a natural disaccharide composed one fructose and one glucose molecule. So it's 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fruits tend to have higher fructose ratios than sucrose. Usually being composed of pure fructose, some glucose, and some sucrose. The ratios vary by fruit. This is similar to HFCS that typically contains 60% fructose and 40% glucose.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. When it enters the body and is broken down into saccharides. The glucose and fructose are handled much differently. In fact, most saccharides go through different routes during processing in the body.

Glucose is most easily used by the body and is stored as the polysaccharide glycogen in the liver and muscles. It goes through many cycles and is easily broken down back into saccharide form and sent/used by other parts of the body.

Fructose, on the other hand, is transported to the liver almost completely. In the liver it is converted to fructose-1-phosphate. Fructose-1-phosphate skips a major glycolysis regulation by phosphofructokinase and is converted to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate by aldolase B, where it re-enters glycolysis.

The important part there is that it skips regulation by a primary glycolysis regulating enzyme (the other being pyruvate kinase), phosphofructokinase. This allows pyruvate to accumulate more readily than in the case of glucose and this allows it to more readily be converted into fatty acids through fatty acid synthesis in cases of pyruvate excess.

(relax, fatty acid synthesis and oxidation occurs every second and if oxidation wins for that time period , then you lose fat)

There is a difference with how your body reacts to every single saccharide (ok, mostly).

That being said, fruit are loaded with crazy-healthy polyphenols and fiber. Fiber slows absorption of the fructose, limiting fructose in the blood, limiting fructose in the liver, slowing conversion to pyruvate, and slowing fatty acid biosynthesis when compared to sucrose (table sugar). Since it absorbs slower, the pyruvate that it makes is more likely to be used by the kreb cycle than fructose (HFCS) found outside of fruit.

So fruits are good. Regardless of what the commercials tell you HFCS is not great and sucrose (table sugar) isn't that bad if your total meal (or previous meals for that matter) have decent fiber content.

Edit: on second look this was probably too in-depth for most peoples interest. I copy and pasted it from my reply for a previous fruit-bashing post.

Yay, great post and very helpful!!!
Thank you.

Great thank you guys !! you have really answered my questions and I am going to turn to tracking Fibre not sugar !!!!

actually, tracking one without the other is going to be hard. if you're low-carbing but not tracking sugars, you're bound to go over your macros. you can set it up to track carbs and also track fiber, and then do the mental math to subtract one from the other.

If one is low carb and still tracking carbs and fiber, but not sugar, how would they go over their macros?

"Table sugar' is natural. There is nothing wrong with added sugar v sugar in fruits etc, other than the fact that it does not contain micronutrients. Sugar in say fruit, comes with the other benefits of fruit - like fiber and vitamins and minerals. I do not bother to track sugar - just try to get a balanced diet - which includes fruits, veggies etc.

This isn't a hundred percent true.

Table sugar is a natural disaccharide composed one fructose and one glucose molecule. So it's 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fruits tend to have higher fructose ratios than sucrose. Usually being composed of pure fructose, some glucose, and some sucrose. The ratios vary by fruit. This is similar to HFCS that typically contains 60% fructose and 40% glucose.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. When it enters the body and is broken down into saccharides. The glucose and fructose are handled much differently. In fact, most saccharides go through different routes during processing in the body.

Glucose is most easily used by the body and is stored as the polysaccharide glycogen in the liver and muscles. It goes through many cycles and is easily broken down back into saccharide form and sent/used by other parts of the body.

Fructose, on the other hand, is transported to the liver almost completely. In the liver it is converted to fructose-1-phosphate. Fructose-1-phosphate skips a major glycolysis regulation by phosphofructokinase and is converted to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate by aldolase B, where it re-enters glycolysis.

The important part there is that it skips regulation by a primary glycolysis regulating enzyme (the other being pyruvate kinase), phosphofructokinase. This allows pyruvate to accumulate more readily than in the case of glucose and this allows it to more readily be converted into fatty acids through fatty acid synthesis in cases of pyruvate excess.

(relax, fatty acid synthesis and oxidation occurs every second and if oxidation wins for that time period , then you lose fat)

There is a difference with how your body reacts to every single saccharide (ok, mostly).

That being said, fruit are loaded with crazy-healthy polyphenols and fiber. Fiber slows absorption of the fructose, limiting fructose in the blood, limiting fructose in the liver, slowing conversion to pyruvate, and slowing fatty acid biosynthesis when compared to sucrose (table sugar). Since it absorbs slower, the pyruvate that it makes is more likely to be used by the kreb cycle than fructose (HFCS) found outside of fruit.

So fruits are good. Regardless of what the commercials tell you HFCS is not great and sucrose (table sugar) isn't that bad if your total meal (or previous meals for that matter) have decent fiber content.

Edit: on second look this was probably too in-depth for most peoples interest. I copy and pasted it from my reply for a previous fruit-bashing post.

Right. No one here was bashing fruit. And those commercials are correct. HFCS is just sugar.

"Table sugar' is natural. There is nothing wrong with added sugar v sugar in fruits etc, other than the fact that it does not contain micronutrients. Sugar in say fruit, comes with the other benefits of fruit - like fiber and vitamins and minerals. I do not bother to track sugar - just try to get a balanced diet - which includes fruits, veggies etc.

This isn't a hundred percent true.

Table sugar is a natural disaccharide composed one fructose and one glucose molecule. So it's 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fruits tend to have higher fructose ratios than sucrose. Usually being composed of pure fructose, some glucose, and some sucrose. The ratios vary by fruit. This is similar to HFCS that typically contains 60% fructose and 40% glucose.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. When it enters the body and is broken down into saccharides. The glucose and fructose are handled much differently. In fact, most saccharides go through different routes during processing in the body.

Glucose is most easily used by the body and is stored as the polysaccharide glycogen in the liver and muscles. It goes through many cycles and is easily broken down back into saccharide form and sent/used by other parts of the body.

Fructose, on the other hand, is transported to the liver almost completely. In the liver it is converted to fructose-1-phosphate. Fructose-1-phosphate skips a major glycolysis regulation by phosphofructokinase and is converted to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate by aldolase B, where it re-enters glycolysis.

The important part there is that it skips regulation by a primary glycolysis regulating enzyme (the other being pyruvate kinase), phosphofructokinase. This allows pyruvate to accumulate more readily than in the case of glucose and this allows it to more readily be converted into fatty acids through fatty acid synthesis in cases of pyruvate excess.

(relax, fatty acid synthesis and oxidation occurs every second and if oxidation wins for that time period , then you lose fat)

There is a difference with how your body reacts to every single saccharide (ok, mostly).

That being said, fruit are loaded with crazy-healthy polyphenols and fiber. Fiber slows absorption of the fructose, limiting fructose in the blood, limiting fructose in the liver, slowing conversion to pyruvate, and slowing fatty acid biosynthesis when compared to sucrose (table sugar). Since it absorbs slower, the pyruvate that it makes is more likely to be used by the kreb cycle than fructose (HFCS) found outside of fruit.

So fruits are good. Regardless of what the commercials tell you HFCS is not great and sucrose (table sugar) isn't that bad if your total meal (or previous meals for that matter) have decent fiber content.

Edit: on second look this was probably too in-depth for most peoples interest. I copy and pasted it from my reply for a previous fruit-bashing post.

What are you disagreeing with in my post?

That's OK, you believe the commercials. I'll believe my biochemistry degree, graduate school education, and the countless peer-reviewed scientific articles that I researched on this subject.

This, yes!

What are you disagreeing with in my post?

Nothing really. I initially read it one way. Upon rereading I don't disagree at all. Sorry for quoting you. I'll edit!

Table sugar is a natural disaccharide composed one fructose and one glucose molecule. So it's 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fruits tend to have higher fructose ratios than sucrose. Usually being composed of pure fructose, some glucose, and some sucrose. The ratios vary by fruit. This is similar to HFCS that typically contains 60% fructose and 40% glucose.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. When it enters the body and is broken down into saccharides. The glucose and fructose are handled much differently. In fact, most saccharides go through different routes during processing in the body.

Glucose is most easily used by the body and is stored as the polysaccharide glycogen in the liver and muscles. It goes through many cycles and is easily broken down back into saccharide form and sent/used by other parts of the body.

Fructose, on the other hand, is transported to the liver almost completely. In the liver it is converted to fructose-1-phosphate. Fructose-1-phosphate skips a major glycolysis regulation by phosphofructokinase and is converted to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate by aldolase B, where it re-enters glycolysis.

The important part there is that it skips regulation by a primary glycolysis regulating enzyme (the other being pyruvate kinase), phosphofructokinase. This allows pyruvate to accumulate more readily than in the case of glucose and this allows it to more readily be converted into fatty acids through fatty acid synthesis in cases of pyruvate excess.

(relax, fatty acid synthesis and oxidation occurs every second and if oxidation wins for that time period , then you lose fat)

There is a difference with how your body reacts to every single saccharide (ok, mostly).

That being said, fruit are loaded with crazy-healthy polyphenols and fiber. Fiber slows absorption of the fructose, limiting fructose in the blood, limiting fructose in the liver, slowing conversion to pyruvate, and slowing fatty acid biosynthesis when compared to sucrose (table sugar). Since it absorbs slower, the pyruvate that it makes is more likely to be used by the kreb cycle than fructose (HFCS) found outside of fruit.

So fruits are good. Regardless of what the commercials tell you HFCS is not great and sucrose (table sugar) isn't that bad if your total meal (or previous meals for that matter) have decent fiber content.

Edit: on second look this was probably too in-depth for most peoples interest. I copy and pasted it from my reply for a previous fruit-bashing post.

I love this - no bull post! I'm gonna friend you - seriously i like smart people.