Does the source of sugars matter?

In my mind they are. I limit myself on bananas because they are really high in them. I stick to apples and berries mostly. But, the way I see it, fruit is sooo much better than cookies. They have other nutritional factors that make them worth it! I also balance them out with a protein when I eat them. (Cheese usually! lol)

Assuming you keep macronutrients/calories consistent, then the source of sugar does NOT matter in regards to body composition.

Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Galactose is galactose. Your body will perceive them in terms of molecular structure once they are metabolized, NOT the food they came from.

In my opinion they are different. I think as long as you are eating those sugary fruits in first half of the day, you are fine. Hell, the caveman ate as much as he could stomach and they never find obese cavemen bones.

Why does it matter when they are eaten?

I don't usually reply to these posts.........but I can't help it on this one. Sugar IS the same on a molecular level depending on its structure-sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc. How the body absorbs and processes it will always be determined in its delivery agent, i.e.:fruits and veggies vs cookies and processed foods.

I submit- http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Its long!!! About 90 minutes but the science seems pretty spot on.
End of it is that I dont pay so much attention to the total sugar content as long as its in the form of whole foods and not processed.

Admittedly I am not diabetic but they should have the same concerns- absorption of sugar into the blood/glycemic index.

Regards,
Tom

Keep eating your daily apple and banana. This article does a good job of explaining the role of fiber in fruits and other unprocessed foods.

http://lifehacker.com/5809331/what-sugar-actually-does-to-your-brain-and-body

"Fructose doesn't provide a satiety alert to let your brain know to tell you to stop eating, but fiber does this to a high degree. This is why you can eat fruit—despite the fructose content—without experiencing the same problems as, say, drinking a sugary soda. This is why fruit can actually be beneficial. The same goes for processed sugar. Sugar doesn't exist naturally as sparkly white crystals, but as a really tough stick called sugar cane. It isn't until you process the sugar can that you lose all the fiber it contains. Without the fiber, you only have the tasty but problematic part of the original food. That's why processed sugars can cause problems."

Absolutely there is a difference. First of all, the time of day when you eat them can have an effect. If your body is depleted of glycogen (like in the morning after you wake up or after 45+ minutes of moderately intense activity), eating items with *some* sugar can help replete these stores quicker. This is not to say go eat three oreos right after a long jog. The source of sugars also matters. Fruit contains fiber along with the sugars, so your insulin spike will not be as sharp as eating, lets say, a large piece of cake. You should google 'Glycemic Index' and check it out. The Glycemic Index is very important in regards to health and weight loss, as regulation of insulin levels helps determine when your body stores fat, and when it doesn't. And as some people already mentioned, fruit usually has added benefits such as vitamins.

The argument should not be 'oh is glucose better than fructose or galactose'. Monosaccharides vs Polysaccharides etc. The chemical makeup of the sugar (CnHn-2On-1)+n(H2O) isn't really what the debate should be on.

Regardless, I have seen a TREMENDOUS amount of misinformation and anecdotal evidence being boasted as fact on MFP. I would highly suggest turning to a reputable source for information if you are serious. Hope this helps. Cheers!

Time of day does not matter unless you are doing *multiple* glycogen-depleting workouts per day.

Insulin spikes do not matter. Insulin ONLY matters for those with chronically raised levels. The boosts that come from meals has no bearing on body composition. That is a myth. The glycemic index has no bearing on body composition outside of those who are insulin resistant or diabetic, which is a relatively small portion of the population.

Speaking of reputable sources, can you find me sources that show normal, healthy individuals losing more fat by favoring certain GI foods? Preferably clinical trials that control for caloric/macronutrient intake, and trials that are not performed on diabetics or insulin resistant participants. Because I can post probably 10 that will tell you GI means absolutely nothing for long-term weight loss.

See: Das SK, et al. Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized

"These findings provide more detailed evidence that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss."

White or table sugar, what is usually in cookies and other sweet junk food (as well as stuff with high fructose corn syrup) is a mix of fructose and glucose. Sugar is 50/50, while HFCS is about 55/45 (fructose/glucose). Fruit, on the other hand, is all fructose.

This matters because only glucose (of the two) triggers the body to make insulin. This is why diabetics can use fructose but are told to avoid glucose.

Fruits and veggies also tend to be relatively high in fiber, which help you eat less (vs junk food's "empty calories" that aren't filling).

Wikipedia actually has a good article on Fructose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose_metabolism

Without seeing your food list, I'd say keep eating the fruits and veggies (they have way too many other benefits to give up) and see what you can do about the hidden sources of sugar. For example, opt for making your own juices if you do that kind of thing. Make your own sauces and condiments (easier than you'd think. and actually cheaper).

Also, apples aren't created equal. Perhaps do some research and see if you can find a variety with lower sugar and/or more nutrients.

Ok you totally lost me!! What now? does it matter? not matter? how do I know what kind of sugar is in an apple?

Please help I'm always over on sugar too

It does not matter. Anyone who says otherwise can feel free to bring forth empirical, peer-reviewed research. The GI content or simple/complex of the carb is irrelevant. Assuming your calories/macros are consistent, then the sugar you eat doesn't matter whether it comes from an apple or a candy bar.

*Again, regarding body composition.

Ok thank you for that!! So if I'm within my calories per day...I can continue with my fruits right? I eat cantaloupe, green grapes, apples and sometimes banana

Why does it matter when they are eaten?
[/quote]

I was informed by a fitness nutritionist that, for weight loss, the first part of your day should be a little more carb heavy, and the back half of your day be more protein heavy. As I understand it, this helps your body turn to fat in the the evening for fuel rather than carbs/ sugars.
[/quote]
That nutritionist is 100% wrong and needs to put down Men's Health and start doing some pubmed searches.

For the time being his credentials are more real than yours. (pro bodybuilder and certified nutritionist and fitness instructor vs a no faced, no name guy doling out expert advice on a forum).

I notice your only purpose around this forum is to argue with people and insult their "trainers", meanwhile your only area of expertise seems to be a couple of websites.

If my friend's advice wasn't sound he wouldn't be winning his age group in bodybuilding competitions. He lives by the advice he preaches and it shows (awards). But then again, real results don't hold up to "internet articles", do they?

I refuse to argue with a faceless internet expert. Feel free to insult anyone else that has an opposing view to yours, and we'll just all accept you as the forum know-it-all.

I notice your only purpose around this forum is to argue with people and insult their "trainers", meanwhile your only area of expertise seems to be a couple of websites.

If my friend's advice wasn't sound he wouldn't be winning his age group in bodybuilding competitions. He lives by the advice he preaches and it shows (awards). But then again, real results don't hold up to "internet articles", do they?

I refuse to argue with a faceless internet expert. Feel free to insult anyone else that has an opposing view to yours, and we'll just all accept you as the forum know-it-all.

He and I are both on this forum to INFORM and not just to prove wrong. In MANY instances, information that is not true is given to people just starting their weight loss journey, and they believe they MUST follow rules such as the following.


1. Limited/restricted carbs
2. Avoid fruit
3. Don't eat late at night
4. Eat multiple/frequent meals to "boost" your metabolism




These are just some of the VERY FREQUENT postings I see, and all of them are irrelevant to weight loss and not needed.


A calorie IS a calorie.


Body WEIGHT is determined by energy balance, or calories in vs. out, body COMPOSITION is determined by MACROnutrient consumption. Carbs/fat/protein.

This thread is EXACTLY why I want to stab out my own eyeballs when I try to get any more 'informed' about healthy food choices.

I eat pretty clean. The main source of my sugar overage is my organic cane juice filled yogurt. But I stay well within my calories. I eat a lot of fruit and I always go way over on my sugar.

And I have NO IDEA if that matters. Meh.

He and I are both on this forum to INFORM and not just to prove wrong. In MANY instances, information that is not true is given to people just starting their weight loss journey, and they believe they MUST follow rules such as the following.


1. Limited/restricted carbs
2. Avoid fruit
3. Don't eat late at night
4. Eat multiple/frequent meals to "boost" your metabolism.

Technically speaking, eating small, frequent meals does have merit, though not for the usually touted reasons (such as boosting metabolism). It keeps you from getting so hungry that you binge and overeat., and keeps your blood sugar stable (yes, even non-diabetics have dips and spikes in their blood sugar), which in turn keeps you from feeling overly hungry. It's more about control than how the body handles it, though, and therefore not required if you can control how much you eat no matter how hungry you feel.

A good example of the fact that meal frequency doesn't matter much is John Walker's "Hacker Diet" (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html). He himself eats something like one or two large meals a day and that's about it and successfully lost/maintains weight.

I stumbled on an interesting article regarding diet and starvation mode, by the way:
http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

Technically speaking, eating small, frequent meals does have merit, though not for the usually touted reasons (such as boosting metabolism). It keeps you from getting so hungry that you binge and overeat., and keeps your blood sugar stable (yes, even non-diabetics have dips and spikes in their blood sugar), which in turn keeps you from feeling overly hungry. It's more about control than how the body handles it, though, and therefore not required if you can control how much you eat no matter how hungry you feel.

A good example of the fact that meal frequency doesn't matter much is John Walker's "Hacker Diet" (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html). He himself eats something like one or two large meals a day and that's about it and successfully lost/maintains weight.

I stumbled on an interesting article regarding diet and starvation mode, by the way:
http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

With all do respect, recent studies have actually showed the exact opposite to the above points.


According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical?

Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.



*above taken from an article my Martin Berkhan.

Sugar is sugar: the youtube video you reference is a great video. He tackles this topic around an hour and 13 minutes into the video. Basically says fruit is okay because it is being eaten in conjunction with fiber. If you have the time watch the video or at least this portion...it is really good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM