Refined Sugar and Carbs...what are they exactly?

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Of course they are different, Donuts and snickers also have calories from fat. 100 grams of donuts will have way more calories (388 for a krispy kreme) than 100g of blueberries (57 calories) due to the added fat content.

But if you eat 100 calories of donuts or 100 calories of blueberries, as far as the energy equation and its relation to weight loss or gain , there is no difference.

I'm not talking about energy in vs energy out. I know 100 calories is 100 calories. I am talking about it triggering cravings/keeping you full.

stevencloser wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

cityruss wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple.

Yeah, how you wrote it I thought you were referring to all carbs, but I figured it out. That said, however:

The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Sugar is sugar. I'm curious for more details about this meal, but normally something like an apple (or the high sugar and carb breakfast I had) will be more filling because they have more volume, more fiber, so on for the calories than foods high in added sugar (which often come with lots of fat). Adding a little sugar to your whole grain oatmeal won't make it automatically "addictive" or not filling (not the same thing anyway). It would be basically like an apple -- sugar+fiber+some micronutrients.

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose.

Fruit also have (in varying amounts) sucrose and glucose (sucrose itself is just glucose+fructose and is easily broken apart by the body). They (and dairy) also have some other sugars in smaller amounts.

Table sugar is sucrose. It comes from plants, specifically sugarcane and sugarbeets. It's not really different. The foods it is in are often (not always -- I've added sugar to rhubarb) different.

Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

The micronutrients and fiber in a food does not go away just because you add sugar any more than the sugar in an apple makes it not beneficial. The problem with "junk" foods in excess (sugary or not) is that they are low in micronutrients and tend not to be filling for the overall calories. It's not that sugar itself is uniquely bad or that the sugar in your coffee (although I HATE sweetened coffee) is meaningfully different from the sugar in a banana.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

This is nonsense. The body treats the sugars the same (fructose is processed somewhat differently, but it's in both). The body digests the apple somewhat slower than the sugar in your coffee (or the carbs in some white toast), because it is packaged with fiber, which slows down the process. The same would be true for sugar in oatmeal or added to rhubarb. Fat also slows down the process so ironically some fat-laden junk food (not that there's anything wrong with that) may be processed slower and have less effect on blood sugar initially than a banana. (And if you don't have problems with insulin, this whole thing is likely irrelevant. I find a banana perfectly filling, since I don't have insulin problems.)

It isn't metabolized different, yet people who drink soda with high fructose corn syrup have increased diabetes risks, but people that eat fruit have lower.
I guess metabolisms act differently when researchers aren't looking.

If you consume both is it evened out?

What happens if you eat a blueberry donut?

You'd risk total protonic inversion. Imagine all matter in the universe suddenly stopping but also accelerating to the speed of light at the same time.

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas, boiling! 40 years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from their graves! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria.

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »

The documentary was all about how addicting refined sugar and carbs are.

This sounds like garbage. First of all, sugar is sugar, and all sugar is a carb, so what you are asserting here is that carbs are addictive. [Edit: okay, I may have misread: are you claiming refined sugars and refined carbs?]

Currently, the trend seems to be to demonize whatever you dislike/think is overeaten as addictive. We just had a thread where a poster was asserting that dairy, especially cheese, is addictive (cheese not being a carb, of course), and that's a common claim in vegan internet sites (from my internet research). I am also aware of claim that "processed" food (a ridiculously general term) are addictive, fast food (either because of the fat or the carbs or the salt or even, occasionally, the sugar, which is crazy), and even protein (there's a book called proteinaholics or something like that).

Second, carbs are an incredibly diverse category and most foods that people call "carbs" and tend to overeat are half fat.

My breakfast during the summer has been quite high carb (and even high sugar) -- I've been eating a smoothie. (Today 56! carbs and 62% of calories from carbs.) Absolutely zero cravings or hunger before my normal dinner. This is compared with my prior usual breakfast of eggs, vegetables, and smoked salmon (low carb, same effect on satiety).

An apple is mostly carbs, btw.

Now, might a breakfast affect satiety and cravings? Sure. I don't really ever have an issue with cravings, but if I ate a low protein breakfast I'd likely be hungry quickly. But that's the protein, not the carbs. I know from experience (and to my sadness) that a low-protein, high-fat breakfast that lacks foods like fruits and veg or even whole grains tends to be the worst for me. So bacon or sausage plus eggs (or white toast or a danish), also doesn't work for me, usually, keeping calories the same. Does that mean I'm addicted to fat or sausage? No, it means fat doesn't fill me up as well as some other foods/macros.

Edit: usually what is meant by "refined" carbs is that made with grains that are not whole grains, such as white flour, white rice. But personally, although I normally choose whole wheat pasta when I can, I don't see much of a difference. Pasta is quite filling for me (and not the least bit addictive) when I combine it (as I always have) with lean meat and lots of vegetables in a sauce or topping of some sort, and make sure I eat a reasonable serving of the pasta itself (not hard since the other stuff is my favorite part).

Potatoes and sweet potatoes aren't "refined" but are whole foods. However, although on average they score high as satiating, they don't have a lot of fiber.

Well I was referring to refined sugar, and refined carbs, which would not be the same as what is in an apple. The documentary spoke of added sugars - table sugar. Not the natural stuff. Also, the meal I had did have protein as well, it was just also loaded with refined sugars.

Also, I have heard cheese is addictive as well. But I love cheese, and eat it all the time

Here is what I mean as found on the web:

Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. Foods with natural sugar have an important role in the diet of cancer patients and anyone trying to prevent cancer because they provide essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease.

Refined sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. It is typically found as sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose. We use white and brown sugars to sweeten cakes and cookies, coffee, cereal and even fruit. Food manufacturers add chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to foods and beverages, including crackers, flavored yogurt, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Low-fat foods are the worst offenders, as manufacturers use sugar to add flavor.

How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Because refined sugar is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, no matter how many calories you consumed. The fiber in fruit slows down metabolism, as fruit in the gut expands to make you feel full.

Basically reading that article kind of clarified what I was looking for anyway. It is an increase in blood sugar and quick digestion causing the difference.

Be prepared for a lot of people telling you donuts aren't different than blueberries, and apples aren't different than a snickers.

Of course they are different, Donuts and snickers also have calories from fat. 100 grams of donuts will have way more calories (388 for a krispy kreme) than 100g of blueberries (57 calories) due to the added fat content.

But if you eat 100 calories of donuts or 100 calories of blueberries, as far as the energy equation and its relation to weight loss or gain , there is no difference.

I'm not talking about energy in vs energy out. I know 100 calories is 100 calories. I am talking about it triggering cravings/keeping you full.

Here's a comparison:

Apple (1 medium): 80 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g protein, 22 g carbs, 16 g sugar, 5 g fiber
Chocolate chip cookie (recipe of mine): 206 calories, 14 g fat, 2 g protein, 22 g carbs, 14 g sugar, 0 g fiber

For me (not everyone), the apple will be more filling, and I think it is on average a better choice because it has more micros for the calories (especially if one is trying to lose weight). There would be exceptions: are you wanting a cooking or saving room for it? Is fat satiating to you? Are you tired of apples after eating a bunch in recent days? Stuff like that.

I wouldn't have "cravings" as a result of the cookie and how filling it is hardly matters, as I wouldn't eat it as a meal or snack if I was concerned about hunger. I'd most likely eat it after a filling meal as a dessert type food or, maybe, as a special treat if someone baked them for me or as a "why not" after a long run or bike ride.

However, if you did have cravings/hunger after the cookie and not the apple, it's not because the sugar is different. It's not meaningfully different -- to your body (which breaks down sucrose easily) it's fructose and glucose, mostly. The important differences is that the cookie is typically considered highly palatable (due to the particular combination of ingredients, especially carbs+fat, also vanilla, a bit of salt, etc.), the cookie has a lot more calories (in this case much more from fat (largely butter) than sugar, which it has less of than the apple), and the apple has more fiber and water and overall volume.

The idea that the sugar in the cookie has some major effect that that in the apple does not have makes no sense. The foods are different, but it has nothing to do with the sugar.

Because it gets refined, it gives it pharmacological levels of effect, that's the difference in the sugars:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6

Schulte et al. [5] suggest that certain highly processed foods share pharmacokinetic properties (inasmuch as the term can be used for food), such as high potency and rapid absorption rate, with drugs of abuse. The authors report that such processed foods are strongly associated with self-reported addictive eating as measured by the YFAS. Their findings also demonstrate that fat content and glycaemic load (GL, grams of carbohydrate per serving) predict ratings of problematic foods, where processed foods high in fat and/or GL are self-reported as more problematic. In this study, highly processed foods were defined as those high in fat and refined carbohydrates (high GL) that may also contain low levels of fibre, protein, and water content. Schulte et al. [5] argue that processing of raw foods increases the foods’ ‘potency’, or the absorption of the potential ‘addictive agents’ (e.g. fat, sugar, salt) into the bloodstream, as indexed by spikes in blood glucose levels following consumption.