Sugar v. Natural Sugar

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

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.

"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.

"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.

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?