Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fructose less effective than glucose to body

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fructose less effective than glucose to body

    Does Fructose Make You Fatter? - NYTimes.com

    This talks real quickly about how fructose is converted to fat in the body quicker than other forms of carbohydrates. That means glucose and starch as the two MAIN alternatives. I'm going to assume sucrose is better than fructose because it doesn't bypass insulin and whatnot like fructose can. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

    My point here is not sucrose though. I don't think anyone is calling sucrose 'good', I am simply saying glucose > fructose for replentishing glycogen in your body. This is how the metabolism uses carbohydrates as far as I understand. Your metabolism can use carbs you eat or it can create its own carbs. Active people will need at least a little carb in their diet to be at max energy in my opinion.

    Back to what type of carb. If glucose beats fructose for its ability to stay in system as the body decides what to do with it, does starch (polysaccharides or complex carbohydrates...chains of multiple carbohyrdate molecules...in starch's case, glucose) beat simple glucose for the time it takes to be broken down and used periodically? Less blood sugar spike too.

    On the contrary, if fructose had a purpose, could it be for IMMEDIATE energy? Would it be faster reacting than simple glucose in the metabolism if you wanted to eat something and have enormous energy soon after?

    Check out the link and read my ramblings, and respond to them!

  • #2
    Starch = glucose. The body very quickly breaks down starch into glucose. Enzymes in saliva do it. No benefit to one over the other

    I like to think of fructose as nature's way to ready you for winter. Fruits are most available in autumn
    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

    Comment


    • #3
      Sucrose is one molecule of fructose bound to one molecule of glucose, so you get the good with the bad when you eat sugar.
      My Journal

      Comment


      • #4
        I would like to learn more on this subject, too. I think there is a world of difference in high fructose corn syrup and the fructose found in fruit. I've seen charts that show the fructose levels in various foods, the fructose in a small banana is 5g, a small apple has 6g, but a Coke sweetened with HFCS has 20g.

        When I went low-carb, not following any specific plan, I cut out all carbs except fruit--I ate a ton of fruit: half a pineapple, 5-6 tangerines, 4-5 bananas, mangoes, kiwis--every day, along with meat, cheese, and veggies, and lost weight like crazy.

        I didn't cut calories, maybe even increased them, but before I started that diet, I was eating cookies, ice cream, cake, donuts--all that crap every day. It was later that I read to cut down on fruit and when I did, weight loss came even easier. But, I've always been curious, too, about what happens to fructose from fruit when it enters your digestive system.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hello

          Hi I am new in this forum, I love cooking.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by otzi View Post
            ...When I went low-carb, not following any specific plan, I cut out all carbs except fruit--I ate a ton of fruit: half a pineapple, 5-6 tangerines, 4-5 bananas, mangoes, kiwis--every day, along with meat, cheese, and veggies, and lost weight like crazy.

            I didn't cut calories, maybe even increased them, but before I started that diet, I was eating cookies, ice cream, cake, donuts--all that crap every day....
            This is where we have to be careful in how we represent weight loss and how it happened. Grains, I do believe, are the worst for us and you cut all those out. So was it simply eating tons of fruit that caused your weight loss or was it cutting out of grains and simple sugars?

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, I don't think for a second that eating fruits made me lose weight. I think they were a good way to help kick the sugar and grain cravings and replace bad starches with better starches and nutrients. But, I do know they didn't hinder my weight loss initially.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by peril View Post
                I like to think of fructose as nature's way to ready you for winter. Fruits are most available in autumn
                What about the tropics? Fruit is available year-round in the tropics. Human beings also originate from the tropics. I don't think this is the entire story.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't buy it either: I live in sub-arctic alaska. Last month, I was hunting 150mi above the artcic circle, and found a huge patch of frozen blueberries under the snow. They were easy to get at and I ate at least 10 big handfuls of them. There are also still cranberries on the bushes in my yard from last fall that are quite edible.

                  I was in hawaii this winter and ate tons of fruit right off the trees. So, I think while it's fun to say fruit is only there in the fall to fatten you up for a long winter, the truth is it's available year round in lots of places.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                    Does Fructose Make You Fatter? - NYTimes.com
                    On the contrary, if fructose had a purpose ...
                    ... it would be the plant's purpose and not yours.

                    Plants don't, of course, have purposes. However, insofar as there is variation among individual beings (plants or animals) and those that have some specific characteristic—arising, we assume, "randomly"—may, because of that characteristic, be more likely to survive and reproduce, that characteristic tends to the survival of the being that has it. A being that eats that being may be, as it were, beside the point. I say "may" ... but if an animal eats a fruit because it tastes pleasant (because it's sweet), then that animal will pass the seeds in its faeces, which will help spread the plant.

                    So no being plans anything, but the outcome is that plants with certain characteristics tend to survive. One of those characteristics might be "being sweet to the taste".

                    So we could speak of the plant's "purpose" to avoid saying all that.

                    And, then again, what I just laid out is only what we assume. But does anyone have a better suggestion?

                    Having said that, fruits occurring in the wild tend not to be very sweet. Most fruits you know have been "improved" by man. I guess man has done that in accordance with his his preferences—which we assume must be bequeathed to him by the evolutionary process—but does that mean that those preferences are useful? or are they leading him the wrong way? Who knows?

                    AFAIK, the best advice is probably to eat fresh, whole foods. We wonder about what this or that component of the food does, but if we eat the whole food we get the vitamins and minerals it comes with—which people who eat table sugar, or HFCS, don't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As pointed out above: sucrose = HFCS = glucose + fructose, starch = glucose, and I'd add agave sirup = fructose.

                      I can't see one argument why fructose would be better than glucose. At best it is equal because it is transformed in the liver into glucose as no other cells (apart from sperm) can metabolise fructose. It is generally worse because (a) it puts stress on the liver, (b) it disrupts the normal processes on the liver, (c) if too much fructose arrives at once - which is easily the case nowadays - it is transformed straight into fat.

                      So, simplifying, fructose = fatty liver = metabolic syndrome = obesity / type 2 diabetes...
                      http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Thor Falk View Post
                        As pointed out above: sucrose = HFCS = glucose + fructose, starch = glucose, and I'd add agave sirup = fructose.

                        I can't see one argument why fructose would be better than glucose. At best it is equal because it is transformed in the liver into glucose as no other cells (apart from sperm) can metabolise fructose. It is generally worse because (a) it puts stress on the liver, (b) it disrupts the normal processes on the liver, (c) if too much fructose arrives at once - which is easily the case nowadays - it is transformed straight into fat.

                        So, simplifying, fructose = fatty liver = metabolic syndrome = obesity / type 2 diabetes...
                        Like Thor said. We have a much greater capacity to digest, absorb, use, and store (though the last is admittedly limited) glucose, but the case for fructose is very limited. Absorption is greatest at a 1:1 ratio with glucose, plus it's limited in any case (actual limit is individual, but 5-50g is what wikipedia says). Unabsorbed fructose becomes food for pathogenic bacteria in the gut, and what fructose is absorbed isn't usable by the body until the liver converts it into glycogen or fat. Fructose is also associated with the development of insulin resistance in a way that glucose is not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes fruit is available year round in the tropics, though each fruit can be seasonal. Mangos are a case in point, ripening in the wet season. Have to wonder what was the abundance of fruit in tropical regions before our intervention. For example, the tropical regions of Australia don't have a superabundance of delicious fruit. It would be very easy for a fruitarian who didn't recognise the nasty little growths on plants as nutritious fruit to starve. Now of course, we have fruits in abundance but they are all exotic. The only indigenous plant food that any of you would know is the macadamia, and they're plain hard work to shell
                          Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

                          Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X