Thought I'd picked a healthy breakfast option ...
Replies
-
kcmccormack wrote: »You can make alot of your own "healthier" versions of granola bars or cookies by using fruit purees or vegetable purees in your baking and staying away from honeys, agave or other sweeteners instead of placing your faith in whatever snack some huge corporation MARKETED as "healthy" that's packed with garbage like high fructose corn syrup, refined sugars or whatever else they put in there. You can satisfy your sweet tooth without buying stuff that's sweetened to the nth degree for you.
I just found out I'm diabetic. I have to relearn how to choose foods now.
Man, this blows. I need to find out which fruits and vegetables are still okay and which I need to ditch. 0 -
reachingforarainbow wrote: »So while its not always best to eat packaged sweetened yogurt (better to add it yourself, probably have less sugar), its not really that big of a deal. That sugar is looking at natural and added sugar. This is why it should be separated out (into natural and added sugar). It is accounting for lactose, which is a sugar. In regular nonfat, unsweetened milk, in a cup there is 12 grams of sugar... It's really only bad if its added sugar
ahhh yes the evil added sugars....your body does not distinguish between added sugar and natural sugar it is all the same at the molecular level....
Really? My body has no clue when I eat fructose with or without fiber? And it has no clue about the differences between fructose, glucose, and lactose?
If you're right, I'm wasting my time. If you're incorrect, then I should know any differences, too, and food labels should differentiate for us.
are sugar molecules different?
Does the liver treat different sugars differently or not? Does the digestive system act different in any way when we eat high fiber with fructose than when we don't?
so by that logic if I add table sugar to Metamucil it is then bad because added sugar, or is it good because fiber???
You will never answer my questions, will you?
well you moved the goal posts and never answered mine..so consider us even.
So either you don't know the answer or don't want to answer. Gotcha. Even steven, won't waste any more time asking you.
LOL how ironic...
the feeling is mutual.
Back to struggling through lectures designed for researchers and medical professionals/students, then. I hope the next 'fad' diet is a hepatic health diet so that maybe some experts will get together and put all the research info available as of now into something the rest of us can learn and apply. I care as much or more now about the fat on my liver as I do the fat on my hips. And obviously I won't get straight answers around here regarding that.0 -
I made a table of sugars the other day, considering this topic comes up at least twice a day.
So ironic that honey ("natural", therefore "good" to the back-to-nature crowd) is 41% fructose, whereas high fructose corn syrup ("man-made", therefore responsible for all evils to the back-to-nature crowd) is 55% fructose. The remainder for both is mainly glucose. So is fructose "good" or "bad"? Neither, hahahahaha.
Chemically, there are differences. Fructose:
Glucose:
Confused? Our bodies aren't. We matabolise them all.0 -
For greek yogurt, I don't shy away from the full-fat (5%) versions. Fat makes me feel full, for 120 calories I'll take it. What kind I end up with usually depends on what's on sale though.
Can't even find those around here. I had to ask my local Publix kindly to even stock the 2% Fage.
0 -
I made a table of sugars the other day, considering this topic comes up at least twice a day.
So ironic that honey ("natural", therefore "good" to the back-to-nature crowd) is 41% fructose, whereas high fructose corn syrup ("man-made", therefore responsible for all evils to the back-to-nature crowd) is 55% fructose. The remainder for both is mainly glucose. So is fructose "good" or "bad"? Neither, hahahahaha.
Chemically, there are differences. Fructose:
Glucose:
Confused? Our bodies aren't. We matabolise them all.
But do we metabolize fructose and glucose in exactly the same way?
0 -
It hits our systems just as fast. I'm a diabetic. So I know. It's like asking if a left-handed batter hits a ball differently than a right-hander. Yes, there are small differences, but a home run is a home run regardless.0
-
nicsflyingcircus wrote: »For greek yogurt, I don't shy away from the full-fat (5%) versions. Fat makes me feel full, for 120 calories I'll take it. What kind I end up with usually depends on what's on sale though.
Can't even find those around here. I had to ask my local Publix kindly to even stock the 2% Fage.
Augh yes. I usually only see the non fat stuff, and that isn't as sating as the other kinds. It's so frustrating to me that this is usually the case... due to all forms of fat being demonized, even good for you fats. Fat (within reasonable consumption) is good, people.0 -
It hits our systems just as fast. I'm a diabetic. So I know. It's like asking if a left-handed batter hits a ball differently than a right-hander. Yes, there are small differences, but a home run is a home run regardless.
I didn't ask about speed. I'm more interested in what I've read and heard in lectures about how the liver handles fructose and the possible role in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome.0 -
Considering that fructose is the sugar found in fruit and was our chief source of sweetness for a very, very, very long time, I'd say our bodies are well able to metabolise it.0
-
-
If you're really interesting in learning more about the metabolism of various sugars, it might be better for you to search out scholarly articles or text books. That is a lot more detailed than most people concerned about weight management/nutrition/health tend to get.
0 -
If you're really interesting in learning more about the metabolism of various sugars, it might be better for you to search out scholarly articles or text books. That is a lot more detailed than most people concerned about weight management/nutrition/health tend to get.
I have been wading through articles, books, and lectures of medical professional mostly created for medical professionals.
Now to be honest I'm more curious about why I can't get a yes/no/I don't know answer to my question.0 -
Fructolysis, a wiki article with problems.
Glycogenesis, which also happens in the liver.
But like I say. We've been metabolising fructose for a very, very long time. Left handed batter.0 -
Fine - Based on a quick wikipedia search, I am going to say that they are metabolized differently due to one process being called fructolysis and one being called glycolysis. Use the referenced articles in the wiki articles for more information.
Now to be honest I'm more curious about why I can't get a yes/no/I don't know answer to my question.
If you're really interesting in learning more about the metabolism of various sugars, it might be better for you to search out scholarly articles or text books. That is a lot more detailed than most people concerned about weight management/nutrition/health tend to get.
0 -
If you're really interesting in learning more about the metabolism of various sugars, it might be better for you to search out scholarly articles or text books. That is a lot more detailed than most people concerned about weight management/nutrition/health tend to get.
I have been wading through articles, books, and lectures of medical professional mostly created for medical professionals.
Now to be honest I'm more curious about why I can't get a yes/no/I don't know answer to my question.
Are you claiming 4 calories of fructose is different than 4 calories of glucose?0 -
There are differences in how they are metabolized, but at a practical level it's not worth worrying about.0 -
Finally! I was going to keep being stubborn until someone said something. Whether I'll worry about it or not is a separate issue. Still not sure yet, got to do more reading and listening.
0 -
It hits our systems just as fast. I'm a diabetic. So I know. It's like asking if a left-handed batter hits a ball differently than a right-hander. Yes, there are small differences, but a home run is a home run regardless.
I didn't ask about speed. I'm more interested in what I've read and heard in lectures about how the liver handles fructose and the possible role in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome.
What were the titles of the lectures?
0 -
If you're really interesting in learning more about the metabolism of various sugars, it might be better for you to search out scholarly articles or text books. That is a lot more detailed than most people concerned about weight management/nutrition/health tend to get.
I have been wading through articles, books, and lectures of medical professional mostly created for medical professionals.
Now to be honest I'm more curious about why I can't get a yes/no/I don't know answer to my question.
They are different molecules, which bind different proteins in the body and therefore required different processes. As someone else mentioned, people who are lactose intolerant can't digest lactose well, but don't have problems with other sugars; they are deficient (or missing entirely) an enzyme needed to breakdown the initial sugar molecule.
However, all the processes follow the same basic principle: large molecule is cleaved by different enzymes until in it's most basic forms (simple sugars). The body only utilizes glucose, so there are conversion processes for converting other simple sugars to glucose.0 -
...and to a diabetic, all the sugars are metabolised relatively fast (compared to protein and fat), so all are counted the same. Which is why I would grit my teeth when people would offer me "natural" sugars. Nope, hits my system with the same mallet.
.png)
0 -
I think this abstract sums up the sources of my frustrated confusion on the issue. Note how they know what happens in rats, but humans seem to have different reactions, and they don't know what long term lower sugar consumption is going to do to us even though short term higher consumption does increase intrahepatic fat concentration. But also note that they mention moderate amounts as %10 of energy intake in the US and Europe. In 2010, teens and children were getting %16 of calories from added sugar. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db122.htm). I'm fascinated with the subject, and I want my liver to last a very long time, but there is a lot of contradictory information out there.
Summary
Fructose is mainly consumed with added sugars (sucrose and high fructose corn syrup), and represents up to 10% of total energy intake in the US and in several European countries. This hexose is essentially metabolized in splanchnic tissues, where it is converted into glucose, glycogen, lactate, and, to a minor extent, fatty acids. In animal models, high fructose diets cause the development of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. Ectopic lipid deposition in the liver is an early occurrence upon fructose exposure, and is tightly linked to hepatic insulin resistance. 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. 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. There is only limited information regarding the effects of fructose on intrahepatic lipid concentrations. In animal models, high fructose diets clearly stimulate hepatic de novo lipogenesis and cause hepatic steatosis. In addition, some observations suggest that fructose may trigger hepatic inflammation and stimulate the development of hepatic fibrosis. This raises the possibility that fructose may promote the progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to its more severe forms, i.e. non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and cirrhosis. In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration, without however reaching the proportion encountered in non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases. Whether consumption of lower amounts of fructose over prolonged periods may contribute to the pathogenesis of NAFLD has not been convincingly documented in epidemiological studies and remains to be further assessed.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S22107401120018660 -
If you're trying to figure out if you can eat certain sugars or not, try it out and see how your body reacts. All the research papers in the world aren't going to help you...0
-
Fat free and low fat options are full of fillers and use artificial flavorings that aren't good for you anyhow. Try sticking with full fat options. I find in most cases that they also use less sugar.
As far as your morning calorie intake, do what is best for you. As long as your eating your daily calorie intake and not starving yourself or overeating by the end of the day then you're doing fine.0 -
crystalflame wrote: »Sugar is not bad. Fact. Sugar is a neutral entity. It is unhealthy to overconsume it, but sugar is not unhealthy on its own. There's no reason to demonize it. Just eat it in moderation and at an appropriate dosage, as you should with anything.
LOVE THIS.
0 -
its honey. Buy the plain fage no sugar at all, add stevia. 23 gr protein no sugar. Of course honey is pure sugar.0
-
crystalflame wrote: »kcmccormack wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/health-effects-of-sugar?page=2
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-allcrystalflame wrote: »kcmccormack wrote: »Maybe I just don't see the purpose in defending foods high in gs of sugar just cause it fits your calorie allocation. What's the point in getting "healthier" if you're not getting healthier?
Because you can still have a healthy diet overall that incorporates sugar. Demonizing a particular food group just leads to problems. People cut it out entirely when eating it in moderation would make them happy and let them enjoy life more. People guilt-trip themselves the way the OP is doing because they ate something "bad." Sugar is not bad. Eating nothing but sugar and ignoring all the other nutrients you need would be bad, but having yogurt that's a little on the sugary side shouldn't be something anyone feels guilty over. THAT'S not healthy.
I'm not saying tear yourself a new one out of guilt, but I'm saying I agree with her that it's not healthy and sugar IS bad for you. Fact. There's so much retarded claims on MFP from ppl who don't know anything about nutrition that say "eat whatever you want as long as it fits into your calories" or "who cares if you're in a deficit". Seriously? It's not just about losing weight, it's about NUTRITION and feeding your body the right thing.
I never said cut it out 100% or to guilt trip the #&$@ out of yourself, but ppl ridicule posters on MFP for being vigilant about the ingredients in what they chose to eat as if it doesn't matter as long as your calories are straight. It's absurd to me.
I've never seen a single person on MFP claim you should "eat whatever you want" or "who cares." I've seen a lot of people make the true statement that all that matters for weight loss is a calorie deficit. However, none of those people advocate eating nothing but Twinkies, and most of those people get the bulk of their calories from nutritionally dense food. They very much care about their macros and micros. However, they also eat sugar in reasonable amounts, because it fits within their goals, and they're not eating it at an unhealthy dosage. Oh, and the people I assume you're referring to know a ton about nutrition and biochemistry. I learn a lot reading what they post.
The articles you linked don't prove sugar is bad - the first is written by someone who pulls what he wants from inconclusive studies to fearmonger, and on several points he's straight-up wrong. The WebMD article mentions research investigating a possible link between cholestoral and sugar, but nothing is proven yet. It also says MULTIPLE TIMES that the problem is overconsumption of CALORIES, not sugar. And the third one isn't a peer-reviewed study and doesn't have sources, so...no.
Sugar is not bad. Fact. Sugar is a neutral entity. It is unhealthy to overconsume it, but sugar is not unhealthy on its own. There's no reason to demonize it. Just eat it in moderation and at an appropriate dosage, as you should with anything.
I agree in principle, but disagree in the sense that you're not offering any data to support your "appropriate dosage" comment, and that makes it essentially worthless. You could also just as easily say that "formaldehyde is not bad. Just eat it at an appropriate quantity", and you'd be correct. Poison is all about dosage. What is an appropriate dosage? Is it what you personally think it is? Is it what makes you feel good? Something else? You offer nothing objective in this regard.
My point is that evidence seems to be mounting that sugar is indeed very unhealthy for humans past a certain point, which I'm going to guess is likely a lot lower than you think. Has this exact point been established yet? Probably not. My reading of the data leads me to believe that over-consumption of sugar could be linked to a number of bad things. Do we have enough data to show causation yet? No, but it's getting there. Sugarscience.org provides links to a number of recent data sets and research. My point here is that it's a little glib to simply chalk up "sugar is bad" claims to "fearmongering".
As to your last paragraph, I have to agree that "sugar is not bad", because "bad" is a moral term, and sugar has nothing to do with morality. If you reworded it to say "sugar does not have a negative impact on the human body", then I'd have to disagree with you. But what I suspect what you meant to say is that "too much sugar has a negative impact on the human body"....but you're not providing any current data to show how much is too much.
0 -
If you're trying to figure out if you can eat certain sugars or not, try it out and see how your body reacts. All the research papers in the world aren't going to help you...
That's fine for short term goals, but 1. I'm interested in a lifetime of health and diabetes and other issues run heavily in my family and 2. I'm genuinely interested in the subject for its own sake.0 -
as a side note, OP never came back to clarify what was "bad"…correct?0
-
I think this abstract sums up the sources of my frustrated confusion on the issue. Note how they know what happens in rats, but humans seem to have different reactions, and they don't know what long term lower sugar consumption is going to do to us even though short term higher consumption does increase intrahepatic fat concentration. But also note that they mention moderate amounts as %10 of energy intake in the US and Europe. In 2010, teens and children were getting %16 of calories from added sugar. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db122.htm). I'm fascinated with the subject, and I want my liver to last a very long time, but there is a lot of contradictory information out there.
Summary
Fructose is mainly consumed with added sugars (sucrose and high fructose corn syrup), and represents up to 10% of total energy intake in the US and in several European countries. This hexose is essentially metabolized in splanchnic tissues, where it is converted into glucose, glycogen, lactate, and, to a minor extent, fatty acids. In animal models, high fructose diets cause the development of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. Ectopic lipid deposition in the liver is an early occurrence upon fructose exposure, and is tightly linked to hepatic insulin resistance. 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. 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. There is only limited information regarding the effects of fructose on intrahepatic lipid concentrations. In animal models, high fructose diets clearly stimulate hepatic de novo lipogenesis and cause hepatic steatosis. In addition, some observations suggest that fructose may trigger hepatic inflammation and stimulate the development of hepatic fibrosis. This raises the possibility that fructose may promote the progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to its more severe forms, i.e. non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and cirrhosis. In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration, without however reaching the proportion encountered in non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases. Whether consumption of lower amounts of fructose over prolonged periods may contribute to the pathogenesis of NAFLD has not been convincingly documented in epidemiological studies and remains to be further assessed.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210740112001866
LOL "Data source and methods
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were used for these analyses. NHANES is a cross-sectional survey designed to monitor the health and nutritional status of the civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population (9). The survey consists of interviews conducted in participants' homes, standardized physical examinations in mobile examination centers (MECs), and laboratory tests utilizing blood and urine specimens provided by participants during the physical examination. Dietary information for this analysis was obtained via an in-person 24-hour dietary recall interview in the MEC."
and lol at your abstract, how many people are consuming over 200g of fructose a day? And animal models? I wonder if DNL occurs at similar rates as humans or it's much much different?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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