Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Are sugar and starch metabolically identical, thus health wise identical? page 2

  1. #11
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    555
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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?

  2. #12
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    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.

  3. #13
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Artbuc View Post
    Seems like it would be the other way around?
    True. Typo corrected.

  4. #14
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    79
    Quote 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.

  5. #15
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    981
    Quote 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 at 05:06 PM.

  6. #16
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote 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.

  7. #17
    jakey's Avatar
    jakey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Starch, sugar, glycemic index, digestion, health effects...

    Twenty page thread minimum.
    exactly!

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

  8. #18
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote 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.

  9. #19
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,768
    Quote 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 at 06:32 PM.

  10. #20
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •