Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    I was reading an article in the paper drawing attention to a UK health body's criticism of super market food which the supermarkets claimed was healthy, despite having 'high' levels of sugar. The article mentioned noodles which had ~38g of sugar per ~380g of noodles, which is only 10g of sugar/100g. This didn't seem to be a strong factor to criticise the supermarket food on, as as tangerines (mandarins) have 11g of sugar/100g. Other fruits have even higher proportions of sugar. Clearly I'm not suggesting that fruits are unhealthy because of sugar, or that super market noodles are healthy, but if you are going to criticise a food, picking out one factor in isolation seems pretty stupid to me.

    Additionally carb rich sources like rice, pasta and potatoes have high levels of starches (typically around ~20g/100g). Bread can be up to 50g of carbs/100g.

    As far as I'm aware starch and sugar are processed by the body in the same way, they are broken down into glucose and fructose and then further processed. Thus, ignoring other factors (such as any vitamins, minerals, fibre etc), eating a slice of white bread is just as healthy as eating a bowl of sugar.

    Am I correct about the metabolism of sugar and starches? Or are starches broken down slower, or into different constituent parts?
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

  • #2
    Starch breaks down to only glucose. Sugar to glucose and fructose. Very different
    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
      In some ways the bowl of sugar is healthier as fructose does not spike insulin, the GI index is lower.
      Whoever wrote the article either didn't understand what they were writing fully or poorly explained the issues.
      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

      Comment


      • #4
        Starch, sugar, glycemic index, digestion, health effects...

        Twenty page thread minimum.

        Comment


        • #5
          They may break down in the body similarly but they definitely have different effects on my personal eating patterns. Something that tastes noticeably sweet will trigger me to eat much more. There is something about the way it sits in my mouth that just turns me into a wild scroungy beast. A starchy white baked potatoe doesn't have that effect at all. I won't even guess at the science at work here except to say that the pleasure center of the brain must be involved somehow.

          Upshot is that I can eat potatoes and not cookies. Of course, I had better be careful what I put on that baked potatoe or that pleasure center is going to do me in again!

          Comment


          • #6
            Did it come straight from the ground, boat, or butcher? Eat it.

            Did it go to a factory or two to be processed down and packaged? Don't eat it.
            "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

            B*tch-lite

            Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
              Did it come straight from the ground, boat, or butcher? Eat it.

              Did it go to a factory or two to be processed down and packaged? Don't eat it.
              Yup, yup, yup, mmhmm. I think people (including myself) get stuck on this stuff way too. What Joanie said is the basis of primal. So, stop trying to science it. Just eat the food, damnit. Don't worry which is less healthy/more healthy between bread and sugar. You're not eating it anyway, right?
              The process is simple: Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AMonkey View Post
                I was reading an article in the paper drawing attention to a UK health body's criticism of super market food which the supermarkets claimed was healthy, despite having 'high' levels of sugar. The article mentioned noodles which had ~38g of sugar per ~380g of noodles, which is only 10g of sugar/100g. This didn't seem to be a strong factor to criticise the supermarket food on, as as tangerines (mandarins) have 11g of sugar/100g. Other fruits have even higher proportions of sugar. Clearly I'm not suggesting that fruits are unhealthy because of sugar, or that super market noodles are healthy, but if you are going to criticise a food, picking out one factor in isolation seems pretty stupid to me.

                Additionally carb rich sources like rice, pasta and potatoes have high levels of starches (typically around ~20g/100g). Bread can be up to 50g of carbs/100g.

                As far as I'm aware starch and sugar are processed by the body in the same way, they are broken down into glucose and fructose and then further processed. Thus, ignoring other factors (such as any vitamins, minerals, fibre etc), eating a slice of white bread is just as healthy as eating a bowl of sugar.

                Am I correct about the metabolism of sugar and starches? Or are starches broken down slower, or into different constituent parts?
                Define healthy.

                Define your health goal.

                A.) if your goal is to improve insulin sensitivity the bowl of sugar is less unhealthy. (i.e. too much glucose may derange insulin workings).

                B.) if your goal is to reduce fatty liver, the slice of bread is less unhealthy. (i.e. too much fructose increases fatty liver)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by StephenHLi View Post
                  Define healthy.

                  Define your health goal.

                  A.) if your goal is to improve insulin sensitivity the bowl of sugar is less unhealthy. (i.e. too much glucose may derange insulin workings).

                  B.) if your goal is to reduce fatty liver, the slice of bread is less unhealthy. (i.e. too much fructose increases fatty liver)
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The big problem is this:

                    Glucose can be easily metabolized by every tissue in your body, and if there is an excess, you just store it as glycogen. It only becomes a major problem if your glycogen stores are full and you have to store it as fat. Of course, most people on a SAD have full glycogen stored most of the time.

                    Fructose is a huge problem because your liver is the only organ that can metabolize it, and there is no way to easily store it. This means that it takes more than five times as much glucose as fructose to produce an equivalent metabolic load on the liver. In many ways fructose acts on the liver in the same manner as ethanol. This is is why alcoholic an non-alcoholic liver disease pathology looks so similar, and why fructose consumption is a major risk factor for NAFLD. See this review for more details.
                    Last edited by The Scientist; 02-23-2013, 03:02 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
                      Fructose is a huge problem because your liver is the only organ that can metabolize it, and there is no way to easily store it. This means that it takes more than five times as much fructose as glucose to produce an equivalent metabolic load on the liver.
                      Seems like it would be the other way around?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The claim that fruit creates a toxic load on the liver completely negates the entire premise behind the paleo/primal/ancestral way of eating. It's pretty ironic that so many people on this forum are completely blind to that fact.

                        Humans evolved eating fruit; geographically we originated near the equator where fruit would have been sweet and plentiful all//most of the year. If fruit was toxic to the liver, our species would have died off tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

                        Bottom line: starches and sugars aren't digested and metabolized exactly the same, but if you choose good quality sources, they are excellent for providing energy and building muscles, so go ahead and eat both in whatever amount you thrive on.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
                          Seems like it would be the other way around?
                          True. Typo corrected.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
                            The claim that fruit creates a toxic load on the liver completely negates the entire premise behind the paleo/primal/ancestral way of eating. It's pretty ironic that so many people on this forum are completely blind to that fact.

                            Humans evolved eating fruit; geographically we originated near the equator where fruit would have been sweet and plentiful all//most of the year. If fruit was toxic to the liver, our species would have died off tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

                            Bottom line: starches and sugars aren't digested and metabolized exactly the same, but if you choose good quality sources, they are excellent for providing energy and building muscles, so go ahead and eat both in whatever amount you thrive on.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              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.
                              And I doubt a piece of fruit or 2 would of been eater after a meal or as a snack due to the fructose content, fruit would of been the actual meal if paleoithic man had available fruit.
                              Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 02-23-2013, 06:06 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X