I often hear that it is good to eat fruit. Seems fair, but fruit is loaded with sugar. The small package of raisins I’m earting has 30g of sugar alone. I know that fructose is generally in fruits. What makes it better than say, sucrose or glucose? What are the health benefits of other sugars, like maltose, lactose, etc?
*I’m eating raisins, not earting them.
All those simple sugars are basically pretty similar, in terms of what your body does with them: convert them to glucose to use for metabolism. There’s really not much difference, or advantage over one or the other, unless you’re suddenly hypoglycemic from overdosing on insulin or other diabetic medications. Then plain glucose is best, as it raises serum glucose levels faster.
Note also that sugar does not cause diabetes. Excessive carbohydrate intake (starches and sugars) do increase the risk, but sugar is no worse for you in terms of diabetes risk than the same caloric amount of mashed potatos.
QtM, MD
As QtM says. I suppose the advantage of taking your sugar as fruit rather than refined sugar is that fruit has other things - fibre and vitamins - that are good for you.
Everything in moderation.
I am one of those Calories in Calories out type of guys, but I do have a beef with sugar. Even though doctors and dieticians like to say it is OKAY!
Bollocks I say. Raisins have enough fiber and protien to slow down digestion enough that you don’t have a huge insulin surge. Same with many fruits.
Eating a candybar that is mostly sugar will cause a huge spike in blood sugar, followed shortly by a crash. The crash caused blood sugar levels to drop, thereby signaling hunger. Meaning sugar makes you eat more. That is the danger of it.
To say one doesn’t have to worry about it if you are not hypoglycemic is kind of foolish IMO. I mean if you eat lots of sugar, you get fat, and complain about it, that is bad. Right? Way to go doctors and nutritionalists, go ahead and say sugar is just fine and dandy, eat all you want. Being fat is beautiful. Etc.
Stop misrepresenting what I say, epimetheus! I never said anything like that garbage you are inferring. One gets the same spike in blood sugar from fruits, pastas, rice, etc. Nor do I ever say “eat all you want”.
You obviously have your own ax to grind, while I am trying to give factual replies.
QtM, MD
Sorry QM. I wasn’t specifically refering to you, I appologize. I should have specified.
When people ask my how I lose weight and such, I tell them I watch what I eat in terms of sugar. They always spout out doctors (who are always invariably fat) that say that eating sugar is A-0k.
I am not a doctor, but I do read up on how the body works, and the whole Insulin spike thing can be avoided by proper diet. Eating some fiber, fats, or protien with said fruit. Eating smaller amounts, but more often. This is generally what I try to tell people, but they want to eat their sugar, and will justifiy it any way they want.
Sugar as in high carb, fast digesting foods as well. (I know that it isn’t the same, and might lead to some confusion)
I don’t think sugar is going to kill the average person, dear no, I eat it myself on occasion. It is just that step people like to take when you tell them some sugar is ok. Then they start eating donuts for breakfast, junk food from the machine for lunch and snack on candy bars and chips all day. Because their doctor told them because they are not borderline diabetic sugar and carbs are ok. They themselves take it to the extreme. Not necessarily the doctors.
Thanks everyone. So basically, it isn’t the fructose which is better for you, but other things in the fruit.
Thanks again.
With trepidation, I’ll have to disagree. Different foods have different glycemic indexes, which is an indicator as to how quickly the sugar is absorbed. Complex carbs, such as rice, have a higher GI than candy bars.
Also, fructose has to be converted into glucose and therefore does not cause such an immediate spike. Diabetics have been advised, so I have heard, that fructose is safer than glucose.
barb, you are correct, I meant to discount glucose from that group. However recent data suggests that when comparing absorption of others sugars than glucose to the so called “complex carbs” (an idea which is losing favor), they are not as different as originally thought, and it’s the presence of fiber that may make a difference.
Anyway, my main point (and I do have one) is that the easiest way to manage risk of diabetes (or weight loss) is to just count carbs, as it matters little whether they come from fructose, sucrose, or that bowl of rice.
Gentlemen, I was under the impression that sucrose (table sugar) is quickly converted to glucose, while the processing of fructose takes a little longer, therefore “blunting” the insulin spike. Is there truth to this? (While we’re on the subject, could you speak a bit about the “other” sugars: lactose, maltose, galactose, and such?)
Gentlemen, I was under the impression that sucrose (table sugar) is quickly converted to glucose, while the processing of fructose takes a little longer, therefore “blunting” the insulin spike. Is there truth to this? (While we’re on the subject, could you speak a bit about the “other” sugars: lactose, maltose, galactose, and such?)
Do we have to answer it twice, since you asked it twice. Fructose does take longer, as I previously said. There are many other sugars with six carbons as well as with five and other numbers. Glucose and sucrose are quickly absorbed. Lactose is found in milk products which also contain fat, and, consequently, absorption would be slower. I’ll let an expert speak about the others, as I don’t know offhand.
Just for the record, that was not a double submission – I clicked on “submit reply” and dealt with mail in another instance of MSIE while the post loaded. But thanks – I’m sorry I missed your already having discussed the fructose delay when I read the thread before posting.