No announcement yet.

Are sugar and starch metabolically identical, thus health wise identical?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    THat's another paleo myth that's been debunked countless times.
    Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? | Raw Food SOS
    Summary - Wild fruit is often bigger even sweeter than many cultivated fruits.
    Exactly. We evolved eating tropical fruits, not crabapples.


    • #17
      Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
      Starch, sugar, glycemic index, digestion, health effects...

      Twenty page thread minimum.

      p.s.> TheScientist sounds like he's gone to lustig land.


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
        1. It doesn't negate anything. Your liver is perfectly capable of metabolizing small amounts of fructose. It is just that sodas and fruit juices and processed snack stuffs have incredibly large amounts of it.

        2. Humans did evolve eating fruit, but it was wild fruit. Compare an apple or banana in a supermarket today to their ancestral species, and you will see that we have selectively bred the sugar content up many times over what it originally was. One large grocery store apple probably contains more than 10 times that of a crabapple. I am not saying that you should not eat apples, just that they (and other fruit high in sugar) should be eaten in moderation. No pre-agriculture human could have ever consumed the amount of fructose that we can by eating a big bowl of fruit salad, let alone a pepsi. This is why our liver treats fructose as a (potential) toxin. We evolved a series of enzymes to metabolize it, but only in small amounts because that is what the environment at the time required.
        Your opinions simply are not true. Yes you will find many studies showing the negative effects of fructose but all studies will be done using super doses of pure fructose. There is no food that only has fructose in it, it will always be paired with glucose among other things. You will not find a study that shows even massive amounts of fruit sugar has the same effects as fructose only. Hell, there is a whole group of people who prove that even up to 1000g of fruit sugar a day will not cause NAFLD or any of the other dangers that fructose supposedly has.

        Bottom line, fruit is not and never has been dangerous at any quantity. We have eaten it from the beginning.


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
          I have to call you out on claim A. The evidence is clear that fructose is much more of a problem for insulin sensitivity. The paper shown here demonstrates that quite thoroughly. They put two groups on with a fructose of glucose-suplemented diet (25% of calories) and measured insulin sensitivity, liver de novo lipogenesis, and many other interesting things. Fructose induced dramatically higher levels of liver DNL and also reduced insulin sensitivity and increased postprandial glucose levels. Avoid fructose if it is not in an actual piece of fruit at all costs.
          I think you all are arguing over nothing. The fella already said this as bolded above.....

          Furthermore, his next post calls out fruit juice, soda, and processed snack stuff.

          Sorry, but I'm having trouble finding anything all that zealous. Seems like general knowledge to me. I really don't care how much fruit you do or don't eat. There IS a difference between sugar and starch and The Scientist lays out some of it.
          Last edited by Neckhammer; 02-23-2013, 07:32 PM.


          • #20
            You are not seeing any zealotry? Did you miss his next two posts? Even the line you quoted says "avoid fructose at all costs".

            I dont think anyone is arguing that sugar and starch or glucose and fructose are metabolized differently.


            • #21
              What? "If its not in an actual piece of fruit". Sounds perfectly whole food primal philosophy. Fructose outside of whole foods should be avoided because it is processed by the liver and taken in large boluses without other factors to slow absorption and particular micronutrients to mitigate the damage could place undue demand on the liver causing issue. Is that zealous to say? I think its a fairly accurate statement based on the literature.

              I'd go as far as to say if you are eating primal then eat as much fruit as you see fit. Not really arguing that. Well re-reading his number 2. in that one post I suppose that is what you guys are taking issue with. How much fruit debatable subject if you wanna delve into diet minutia and likely to be part of each persons N=1.... heck even Denise who username linked said this:

              "Note: This isn’t a post about how much fruit we should or shouldn’t be eating, or how much fruit we’ve eaten in the past, or how many apples it’ll take to turn your liver into a ready-to-explode fructose grenade. Those are some hot issues, and I’m not sure they can be reasonably addressed with current research (for instance, there are virtually no studies on the effects of fruit-derived fructose in healthy humans, and quantifying historical fruit consumption is extremely difficult)."

              It's all good. Long as its in context of primal have your fruits IMO have at your fruits. If your going 80/10/10 though all bets are off
              Last edited by Neckhammer; 02-23-2013, 07:58 PM.


              • #22
                Cant really argue, i also agree that any sugar taken in should come from whole foods. Although i dont think some honey, maple syrup or even table sugar needs to be avoided at all costs. I was mostly arguing his Kurt Harris/Lustig views.

                I also dont think 80/10/10 style diets are healthy but it isnt the fructose i would worry about.