A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Why are the only options when it comes to lollies none at all or the whole bag?
Because some people have unhealthy relationships with food. Unfortunately, those who do have the inability to do moderation, assume it has to apply to everyone. It's no different then the carb threads or gluten free threads.
Oh, I understand that, I have the same relationship with brownies
The issue, in this case, I think goes further than thinking it applies to everyone though. The lollies are evil, the sugar is evil, it's not an issue of personal responsibility.
It's really okay to have a problem, in my opinion, admitting that you have a weakness when it comes to sweet things. I have no trouble telling people I have no self-control when it comes to brownies. They're a perfect storm of bitter and sweet and their texture is another part of the whole package. I'm not going to demonize brownies, though. The problem is mine. This is the issue I have with the whole CARBS are bad! SUGAR is evil!!! crowd. Their anecdata always comes down to stories that revolved around poor behavior with carbs/sugar and then they blame that behavior on the food, not themselves.
I used to think I had a problem with carbs and sugar. I don't. I have trouble with SOME. I was depressed and mindlessly overate others.
Great post, and precisely the issue.0 -
Where did your nutritionist come up with 70 grams as the line when sugar becomes excessive? It seems an arbitrary number.
Possibly arbitrary, 90 grams has been adopted by the Australians and tentatively by the EU.
Perhaps on the basis that you don't need that stuff anyway, so they set a limit of double what many seemed to eat in their fruit & veg.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
So, when people are saying (a) "It doesn`t matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit" what they mean is (b) "Of course it matters what you eat, and added sugars add a lot of calories without having a lot of nutrition, so you should be eating healthy most of the time. As long as you are eating a healthy, balanced diet then you can have the occasional treat,"? Cause I'm pretty sure that A and B don't equal each other in most people's minds. If they do, then we all agree, though
That's what makes me want to pull my hair out when I read these threads. I think 90% of the posters on both sides do agree about what constitutes a healthy long term approach to weight loss: A sustainable diet that is high in micronutrients and fibre and sufficient in protein and fat, and creates a caloric deficit.
Both sides can be extremely vague about their approach - "I don't eat sugar and I lose weight" vs "I eat ice cream every day - only calories matter", and each side either honestly or disingenuously assumes that the other side has no other guidelines they follow. I think the MFP veterans are guilty of building strawmen in their arguments to some extent, but you also have to remember that newbies may not understand that there is a lot more implied than just what is stated.
Just cutting out sugar does not cause weight loss. However, some people find that they are less likely to overeat if they strictly reduce or even eliminate added fats and sugars and use whole food sources that are more satiating and contain more micronutrients. they feel full on fewer calories, and find that their cravings for sugary foods subside in time.
CICO does not ensure a healthy diet. However, for people who want to keep eating some less nutrient dense "fun food", using discretionary calories after macro and micro nutrient requirements are met is a good way to ensure long term adherence. They don't want to feel they are depriving themselves and risk returning to their old habits out of frustration.
I know that's stating the obvious for a lot of the old timers, but don't assume that people who receive no nutrition education in school and are trying to lose weight for the first time without a rigid diet program understand this. If they did, they wouldn't be asking. The constant arguments without full explanation are likely to make them even more confused. You know what you are trying to say. I (think I) know what you are trying to say. A lot of noobs take what you say at face value.
And please note I said 90% - I realize there are posters who think that cutting carbs (or fat, or anything else) means you can ignore calorie balance, and posters who think that 1200 calories of literally any foodstuff is a perfectly healthy approach regardless of fibre, protein, micronutrients, etc., but I'm not talking about these fringe dwellers, who are a lot rarer than you probably think.0 -
The latest research shows it doesn't matter what you eat, as long as you stay below your calorie intake. A low carb diet is helpful in controlling your appetite and keeping your blood sugar stable. A high processed sugar diet, is it good for your health? No. Will it keep you from losing weight. No. My sugar is always over, by double. One step at a time:
1) Manage your calorie intake
2) Monitor the foods you eat
3) Make incremental changes based on patterns
Go luck!0 -
shelleygold wrote: »I have a slightly different point of view then most of the kind people who have replied. Although I am used to calorie counting and attempt to keep the energy intake below my required baseline (to loose weight), I am aware of other concerns which negatively impact general health in relation to excessive sugar consumption (I am told over 70g of sugar is excessive according to my nutritionist who is a qualified organic chemist and has specialised in wholistic medicine). The main concern relates to the impact sugar has on the acidity of the PH of the body which, in turn, creates an environment for diseases which thrive on a poorly balanced PH (below 7 which implies acidity). Thus, sugar in any excessive amount should be avoided for this reason. Related concerns can be found in a great book I have been recommending for several years. David Gillespie's book "Sweet Poison" argues rather convincingly that sugar intake is directly responsible for obesity over the past 5 decades due to the insidious nature of Fructose and the chemical reactions which lead to excessive amounts of insulin which places stress on the pancreas and eventually the liver etc. Remember that sugar is a chemical (neither vitamin or mineral) and is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent Fructose) and has only been introduced into our diets at the dizzying heights we tend to consume in the past 50 years. I would love for people here to take a look at the book and see what you think? Thanks for keeping an open mind.
The body maintains a very strict pH level between 7.35 and 7.45. If the body's pH ever dipped into being acidic, you'd be dead within hours, as that would imply a catastrophic failure of most body systems. Eating sugar wouldn't do it.
As for sugar consumption over the last few decades? It's actually decreased significantly over the last 20 years. The largest increase in sugar consumption occurred in the 19th century. Sugar has been considered a necessary household staple since the 17th century.
The simple fact of the matter is over the last 50 years we humans have become far less active due to the rise of technological advances and the service economy, while eating significantly more calories than we were (a 500 calorie per day increase since 1970, mostly from fat.)
Moving less, eating more. The mystery of the "obesity epidemic" wasn't really that mysterious. But it also doesn't sell books, so people like Mr. Gillespie needed to invent a story to scare people with.
Also, for the record, all vitamins and minerals are chemicals. And just so you're aware, they're all acids, too. In fact, all dietary fat are acids, and all proteins are acids. So if all the foods we need to eat to be healthy are acidic in nature, why would sugar (which is neutral) make our pH more acidic, but all the acids we eat that are "healthy" don't? All it really takes is applying just a little critical thinking, rather than blindly believing the first things you read.-1 -
Every sugar thread makes me sad for the future of the human race. We won't make it if we remain as gullible as some.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wanted to post one word for discussion and see where it leads. Inflammation. It is surprising to me that with all of these sugar threads I haven't really seen this come up much. I'm curious as to what many of you think about it and how it relates to high sugary foods. I don't know if some would lump it into the category of "medical conditions", but I think it deserves some attention. I know for me personally, sometimes consuming a lot of sugar at once can intensify my allergies a bit temporarily. While of course not everyone reacts the same way, I wonder if it would be agreed upon that sugar is an inflammatory substance. Or would some say that's not true. Also, while I gave a short term example, I'm also looking at long term implications.This should end the thread but it won't.
"Avoidance of chronic inflammation
Another potential benefit of low CHO diets might lie in their influence upon inflammatory processes that take place within various tissues. Inflammation is a well-established driver of early tumorigenesis and accompanies most, if not all cancers [148]. Chronic, 'smouldering' inflammation can both cause and develop along with neoplasia. There is evidence that chronic intake of easily digestible CHOs is able to promote such an inflammatory state in leukocytes and endothelial cells [94]. In obese individuals [149] and healthy subjects who underwent eccentric exercise training [150], the inflammatory state was further augmented postprandially through a high CHO intake, but not through high-fat, low CHO meals in the latter study. Maybe more importantly, even moderate CHO restriction has been shown to effectively target several important markers of atherosclerosis and type II diabetes, both of which are associated with chronic inflammation [151-157]."
Source: nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/75
ForecastererJason research seems to indicate through high intake of sugar/similar carbs that can in some cause an inflammatory state leading to atherosclerosis and Type 2 Diabetes.
You may have hit the nail on the head with your point about Inflammation. Thanks
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »It is amazing for me to see how this thread has turned. Some of the exact same stuff was just repeated yesterday (by the same people) in a separate thread in a completely different part of the forum. I got blasted for saying that "broccoli is healthier than a brownie".
It's all about perspective.
Here is the nutrition information for broccoli:
And for three types of brownies:
When you compare nutrition facts, the deciding factor would be made according to what is important. If you need to fulfill your fat macro, and have the extra calories, the brownie would do it. However, if you need something low calorie and you are close to your sugar macro, then the broccoli might be right for you.I understand the alternate way of looking at it that is being presented here, but some of you have to admit that in general I don't think too many people grow up with the idea that there is no such thing as "unhealthy" food or "healthy" food. I can almost guarantee that if I asked 10 of my friends (not on MFP), all of them would be completely lost if someone told them no such thing existed.
This is true. My mother taught moderation, but she also taught us that some foods were not good for us, while others were. It took me a long time to realize that it's the overeating of any food that is not good for me, because overeating leads to excess calories and weight gain. If I moderate food and make choices in an attempt to meet my macros, then I'm doing good.
That's some GREAT vitamin C in the broccoli!0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
So, when people are saying (a) "It doesn`t matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit" what they mean is (b) "Of course it matters what you eat, and added sugars add a lot of calories without having a lot of nutrition, so you should be eating healthy most of the time. As long as you are eating a healthy, balanced diet then you can have the occasional treat,"? Cause I'm pretty sure that A and B don't equal each other in most people's minds. If they do, then we all agree, though
That's what makes me want to pull my hair out when I read these threads. I think 90% of the posters on both sides do agree about what constitutes a healthy long term approach to weight loss: A sustainable diet that is high in micronutrients and fibre and sufficient in protein and fat, and creates a caloric deficit.
Both sides can be extremely vague about their approach - "I don't eat sugar and I lose weight" vs "I eat ice cream every day - only calories matter", and each side either honestly or disingenuously assumes that the other side has no other guidelines they follow. I think the MFP veterans are guilty of building strawmen in their arguments to some extent, but you also have to remember that newbies may not understand that there is a lot more implied than just what is stated.
Just cutting out sugar does not cause weight loss. However, some people find that they are less likely to overeat if they strictly reduce or even eliminate added fats and sugars and use whole food sources that are more satiating and contain more micronutrients. they feel full on fewer calories, and find that their cravings for sugary foods subside in time.
CICO does not ensure a healthy diet. However, for people who want to keep eating some less nutrient dense "fun food", using discretionary calories after macro and micro nutrient requirements are met is a good way to ensure long term adherence. They don't want to feel they are depriving themselves and risk returning to their old habits out of frustration.
I know that's stating the obvious for a lot of the old timers, but don't assume that people who receive no nutrition education in school and are trying to lose weight for the first time without a rigid diet program understand this. If they did, they wouldn't be asking. The constant arguments without full explanation are likely to make them even more confused. You know what you are trying to say. I (think I) know what you are trying to say. A lot of noobs take what you say at face value.
And please note I said 90% - I realize there are posters who think that cutting carbs (or fat, or anything else) means you can ignore calorie balance, and posters who think that 1200 calories of literally any foodstuff is a perfectly healthy approach regardless of fibre, protein, micronutrients, etc., but I'm not talking about these fringe dwellers, who are a lot rarer than you probably think.
Well put, Peas.
We may have gone on and on about nutrition, but the new folks may not have seen it, and as a former high school, and now current college teacher...folks who are new to all of this may truly not know how to eat a nutritious diet.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »It is amazing for me to see how this thread has turned. Some of the exact same stuff was just repeated yesterday (by the same people) in a separate thread in a completely different part of the forum. I got blasted for saying that "broccoli is healthier than a brownie".
It's all about perspective.
Here is the nutrition information for broccoli:
And for three types of brownies:
When you compare nutrition facts, the deciding factor would be made according to what is important. If you need to fulfill your fat macro, and have the extra calories, the brownie would do it. However, if you need something low calorie and you are close to your sugar macro, then the broccoli might be right for you.I understand the alternate way of looking at it that is being presented here, but some of you have to admit that in general I don't think too many people grow up with the idea that there is no such thing as "unhealthy" food or "healthy" food. I can almost guarantee that if I asked 10 of my friends (not on MFP), all of them would be completely lost if someone told them no such thing existed.
This is true. My mother taught moderation, but she also taught us that some foods were not good for us, while others were. It took me a long time to realize that it's the overeating of any food that is not good for me, because overeating leads to excess calories and weight gain. If I moderate food and make choices in an attempt to meet my macros, then I'm doing good.
That's some GREAT vitamin C in the broccoli!
Indeed it is! If you need Vitamin C, then the broccoli would do it for you. 0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wanted to post one word for discussion and see where it leads. Inflammation. It is surprising to me that with all of these sugar threads I haven't really seen this come up much. I'm curious as to what many of you think about it and how it relates to high sugary foods. I don't know if some would lump it into the category of "medical conditions", but I think it deserves some attention. I know for me personally, sometimes consuming a lot of sugar at once can intensify my allergies a bit temporarily. While of course not everyone reacts the same way, I wonder if it would be agreed upon that sugar is an inflammatory substance. Or would some say that's not true. Also, while I gave a short term example, I'm also looking at long term implications.This should end the thread but it won't.
"Avoidance of chronic inflammation
Another potential benefit of low CHO diets might lie in their influence upon inflammatory processes that take place within various tissues. Inflammation is a well-established driver of early tumorigenesis and accompanies most, if not all cancers [148]. Chronic, 'smouldering' inflammation can both cause and develop along with neoplasia. There is evidence that chronic intake of easily digestible CHOs is able to promote such an inflammatory state in leukocytes and endothelial cells [94]. In obese individuals [149] and healthy subjects who underwent eccentric exercise training [150], the inflammatory state was further augmented postprandially through a high CHO intake, but not through high-fat, low CHO meals in the latter study. Maybe more importantly, even moderate CHO restriction has been shown to effectively target several important markers of atherosclerosis and type II diabetes, both of which are associated with chronic inflammation [151-157]."
Source: nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/75
ForecastererJason research seems to indicate through high intake of sugar/similar carbs that can in some cause an inflammatory state leading to atherosclerosis and Type 2 Diabetes.
Could you please cite where in that study where they specifically discuss sugar intake? Because the research is about overall carb intake and cancer, there does not seem to be anything in the paper linking sugar to inflammation, or discussing levels of sugar intake at all.0 -
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.
Personally, what I find funny about your link is the below. And considering the majority of the recommendations is to find a balanced diet. What's even more ironic even your own link will back what I am saying. I have highlighted the important part.
"However, in contrast to animal models, fructose intakes as high as 200 g/day in humans only modestly decreases hepatic insulin sensitivity, and has no effect on no whole body (muscle) insulin sensitivity. A possible explanation may be that insulin resistance and dysglycemia develop mostly in presence of sustained fructose exposures associated with changes in body composition. Such effects are observed with high daily fructose intakes, and there is no solid evidence that fructose, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects."
I would also like to point out that 200g of straight fructose is more than the average person would eat. And that is exactly the issue with all of these studies.. they go so outside the realm of what a typical human would have.
I think Alan Alagon has a good discussion regarding fructose:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 non-diet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I think I would explode if I ate 200g of fructose. I don't think she realizes the ridiculous amount of fruit that would be.
I wasn't talking about fructose and insulin, I was talking about the body turning excess sugar into fat at intakes less than 1000g/day (an argument against tigerswords claim.)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1253S.full
" Fifty-gram preloads of fructose and glucose had a differential effect on buffet test meal intake when administered 2 h before lunch. In these experiments, fructose reduced intake by 500 kcal (2092 kJ) more than did glucose and by 200 kcal (837 kJ) relative to a water preload, suggesting an overall appetite suppressive effect of fructose."
"The gastric emptying of fructose is more rapid and less linear. Emptying does slow with increasing fructose concentration, but the overall rate of delivery of fructose from the stomach to the intestine is almost twice as rapid as with glucose"
Fructose (by itself) does not lead to over eating. Fructose is more satisfying than glucose. The effect of eating glucose and fructose together is that the glucose lowers satisfaction, making over-consumption of fructose easier. Fructose is then digested faster than glucose, and deposited as fat in the liver. In fruit, the low amount of fructose (but higher percentage vrs glucose) plus the fiber (and other helpful micronutrients) help the dieter to be satisfied with less calories. Also, the fiber and low initial amout of sugar (10g total in the apple I looked up, 6 from fructose - I don't know where the author of your opinion piece got his totals but they are off) mean that the energy is more likely to be digested at the same rate it is needed, so less is stored, as compared to a 41g sugar (23 g fructose) can of pop.
200 g of fructose is a ridiculous amount of fruit. The 135 g that would be almost 6 cans of pop a day referenced in your article actually happens out there. I know at least two people who drank that much. One stopped drinking pop and lost 30 pounds, without exercise or logging calories.
What I find interesting about your article, is it recommends a maximum of 50 grams of sugar a day (except for athletes), about the MFP recommendation that everyone is telling OP to ignore. Happy New Year0 -
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.
Personally, what I find funny about your link is the below. And considering the majority of the recommendations is to find a balanced diet. What's even more ironic even your own link will back what I am saying. I have highlighted the important part.
"However, in contrast to animal models, fructose intakes as high as 200 g/day in humans only modestly decreases hepatic insulin sensitivity, and has no effect on no whole body (muscle) insulin sensitivity. A possible explanation may be that insulin resistance and dysglycemia develop mostly in presence of sustained fructose exposures associated with changes in body composition. Such effects are observed with high daily fructose intakes, and there is no solid evidence that fructose, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects."
I would also like to point out that 200g of straight fructose is more than the average person would eat. And that is exactly the issue with all of these studies.. they go so outside the realm of what a typical human would have.
I think Alan Alagon has a good discussion regarding fructose:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 non-diet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I think I would explode if I ate 200g of fructose. I don't think she realizes the ridiculous amount of fruit that would be.
I wasn't talking about fructose and insulin, I was talking about the body turning excess sugar into fat at intakes less than 1000g/day (an argument against tigerswords claim.)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1253S.full
" Fifty-gram preloads of fructose and glucose had a differential effect on buffet test meal intake when administered 2 h before lunch. In these experiments, fructose reduced intake by 500 kcal (2092 kJ) more than did glucose and by 200 kcal (837 kJ) relative to a water preload, suggesting an overall appetite suppressive effect of fructose."
"The gastric emptying of fructose is more rapid and less linear. Emptying does slow with increasing fructose concentration, but the overall rate of delivery of fructose from the stomach to the intestine is almost twice as rapid as with glucose"
Fructose (by itself) does not lead to over eating. Fructose is more satisfying than glucose. The effect of eating glucose and fructose together is that the glucose lowers satisfaction, making over-consumption of fructose easier. Fructose is then digested faster than glucose, and deposited as fat in the liver. In fruit, the low amount of fructose (but higher percentage vrs glucose) plus the fiber (and other helpful micronutrients) help the dieter to be satisfied with less calories. Also, the fiber and low initial amout of sugar (10g total in the apple I looked up, 6 from fructose - I don't know where the author of your opinion piece got his totals but they are off) mean that the energy is more likely to be digested at the same rate it is needed, so less is stored, as compared to a 41g sugar (23 g fructose) can of pop.
200 g of fructose is a ridiculous amount of fruit. The 135 g that would be almost 6 cans of pop a day referenced in your article actually happens out there. I know at least two people who drank that much. One stopped drinking pop and lost 30 pounds, without exercise or logging calories.
What I find interesting about your article, is it recommends a maximum of 50 grams of sugar a day (except for athletes), about the MFP recommendation that everyone is telling OP to ignore. Happy New Year
I find it interesting how wrong you continue to be, but just disregard and plow ahead..
happy new year...-1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
If you look up the study, you would see that one of researchers addresses readers' questions about the methodology of the study, particularly the whole fruit vs. juice question:
"Regarding the type or brand of fruits juices, we did not inquire about this detailed information in our food frequency questionnaire. However, the consumption of freshly-squeezed juices without added sugar is likely to be low in our cohorts."
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001/rr/675862
One of the factors in the juice versus fruit situation is serving size. The 150g apple has less than 1/2 the sugar of a cup of apple juice, 40 less calories, and 4 times the fiber. Also, most of the antioxidants in apples are in the peel. Having whole fruit vrs juice lowers calories and sugar, increases polyphenol intake, and increases fiber, which is a reason why whole fruit is a healthier choice than juice.
For those who claim they don't know what healthy food is, or that healthy foods can't be defined - Healthy food helps you meet your micros and macros within your calorie limits. On average, Americans eat 1/2 the fiber that they need, 15g total when it should be 15g/1000 calories - foods that increase your fiber intake while keeping you within your daily calorie limits (especially ones with beneficial nutrients like polyphenols and micros) tend to be examples of healthy foods.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
If you look up the study, you would see that one of researchers addresses readers' questions about the methodology of the study, particularly the whole fruit vs. juice question:
"Regarding the type or brand of fruits juices, we did not inquire about this detailed information in our food frequency questionnaire. However, the consumption of freshly-squeezed juices without added sugar is likely to be low in our cohorts."
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001/rr/675862
One of the factors in the juice versus fruit situation is serving size. The 150g apple has less than 1/2 the sugar of a cup of apple juice, 40 less calories, and 4 times the fiber. Also, most of the antioxidants in apples are in the peel. Having whole fruit vrs juice lowers calories and sugar, increases polyphenol intake, and increases fiber, which is a reason why whole fruit is a healthier choice than juice.
For those who claim they don't know what healthy food is, or that healthy foods can't be defined - Healthy food helps you meet your micros and macros within your calorie limits. On average, Americans eat 1/2 the fiber that they need, 15g total when it should be 15g/1000 calories - foods that increase your fiber intake while keeping you within your daily calorie limits (especially ones with beneficial nutrients like polyphenols and micros) tend to be examples of healthy foods.
ok - I get 400 calories day from ice cream and cookies, hit my calorie goal, and macros/micors = healthy then, right?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
If you look up the study, you would see that one of researchers addresses readers' questions about the methodology of the study, particularly the whole fruit vs. juice question:
"Regarding the type or brand of fruits juices, we did not inquire about this detailed information in our food frequency questionnaire. However, the consumption of freshly-squeezed juices without added sugar is likely to be low in our cohorts."
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001/rr/675862
One of the factors in the juice versus fruit situation is serving size. The 150g apple has less than 1/2 the sugar of a cup of apple juice, 40 less calories, and 4 times the fiber. Also, most of the antioxidants in apples are in the peel. Having whole fruit vrs juice lowers calories and sugar, increases polyphenol intake, and increases fiber, which is a reason why whole fruit is a healthier choice than juice.
For those who claim they don't know what healthy food is, or that healthy foods can't be defined - Healthy food helps you meet your micros and macros within your calorie limits. On average, Americans eat 1/2 the fiber that they need, 15g total when it should be 15g/1000 calories - foods that increase your fiber intake while keeping you within your daily calorie limits (especially ones with beneficial nutrients like polyphenols and micros) tend to be examples of healthy foods.
I was responding to the claim made by GaleHawkins:
"Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level."
I was pointing out that the study he cited was not about whole fruit vs fresh-squeezed juice and that the science did not actually say what he thinks it said. I also pointed out that corrections to the study were printed in a later issue of the BMJ as a result of the response from other scientists to the methodology and findings of the study.
I am well aware of the difference between fruit juice and whole fruit from a nutritional standpoint, which is why I found his claim to be unfounded and went directly to the source material to prove that they were talking about juice with added sugars, and not fresh squeezed juice when it comes to risk levels for Type 2 Diabetes.
I did not say anything about not knowing what healthy food is, so I'm not sure why that was included as a response to my quoted post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions