This doesn’t disprove what I said except that maybe I should’ve said sugar sources are not equal. Sugar is much more complicated than calculating grams. Take for example the loss of chromium in refined sugars. It’s remains present in fruit but 97% is lost when it’s refinined. More about chromium here:
I can have the same amount of sugar from a refined source and a fruit source, but the fruit will act differently in my body (as **DSeid **explained) due to the fiber, chromium and probably others things of which I’m not aware. I’m quite sensitive to refined sugar and notice cravings with even small amounts; yet I can eat my fill of fruit and have zero cravings (fiber comes into play with satiety). I know that’s anecdotal. It’s a realization that’s worked to control my weight and others may find it helpful.
Sidenote: if you’re trying to lose weight, eat the fruit, don’t drink the juice! Besides concentrating calories, skipping the fiber ensures that you’ll take in more and lose the satiety benefits. Think about how many oranges it takes to make a glass of juice. Quite a few. Now how many whole oranges can you eat?
(I know there are benefits to juicing, but in GENERAL.)
Yes but the thing is, as an awful lot of us know, you get to the ‘yeah whatever’ stage with details quite quickly. This sugar that sugar.
I think that maybe why I tuned out of the whole sugar thing for, well, decades.
The point is it’s not some new freak diet - just regular amounts of regular fruit. Plus your 32g (men) or 26g a day of added sugar as per the ingredient list.
It’s the ready made meals, the juices and colas and anything processed - just check out the labelling. The minute you start talking about different sugars and insulin and different calories, people like me begin to turn off
It was pointed out again and I commented; it’s plain weird.
I’m not quite sure how it works in peoples heads that some guy who conducted an experiment, didn’t have a Control, consumed 1800 calories a day (which is pretty hard at the best of times), and didn’t measure his sugar intake is somehow a stronger data point than the World Health Organisation.
Lets be clear, in that link it is called … a class project. It aint the WHO - you see what I’m saying?
Bingo.
World Health Organisation - or any goddam health related organisation in the world or
It’s a conditional recommendation right now. Not that it invalidates the premise, but they admit that the recommendation isn’t as well supported as other nutrition advice. From your link:
In addition, they make recommendations about fat intake, supporting a diet of less than 30% fats and a switch away from trans and saturated fats. They also have total calorie recommendations and they make sodium recommendations. So it clearly isn’t “just added sugar” if we go by the WHO.
There’s nothing wrong with reducing the amount of sugar you consume. Everyone here applauds you for that. More fruits and veggies is on pretty much everyone’s diet tips for all sorts of reasons. But even the organization that you cite as the supporter of “just count added sugar” makes it clear that is not what they support. Diet and nutrition aren’t that easy to sum up in a single choice.
Dude, Mr Freaky 18000 man was five years ago - professionals and scientists are not exactly rushing out to support the bullshit whatever of his classroom project.
The recommendation to go under 10% of calories from added sugar was NOT conditional; it was “strong”. Under 5% was "conditional.
It is not at all controversial in medical and nutritional circles.
The idiot with his n of 1 junk food diet also used protein shakes and vitamin suplementation. It is one anecdote and a poor one at that but not too earth shatering of one. Yes, one can eat little enough junk that one can lose weight while eating nothing but.
Well, you said “there’s a difference between the sugar in fruit (complex carbohydrate) and refined sugar (simple carbohydrate)”, which is false. Sugar in fruit is made up of simple sugars - fructose and glucose. Just like refined table sugar, sucrose, is. The complex carbohydrates in fruit aren’t even listed as sugar on nutrition labels. They’re listed as dietary fiber.
Am I really incorrect when I state that there’s a difference between the words:
“Woman, without her man, is helpless.”
and
“Woman! Without her, man is helpless!”*?
The sentences contain the exact same simple words. Punctuation marks don’t get listed as words. Yes, the words are the same, but the impact is very different. Likewise the impact of the sugar in fruit is very different than the impact of added refined sugar.
Don’t get me wrong, reducing added sugar is not all that matters. But as a shorthand it is a wonderful guide. The only way up_the_junction can succeed in hitting below that added sugar target is by avoiding processed crap nearly completely. Aiming for that has up unavoidably eating more home cooked food, and less crap. Note what has happened as that has occurred:
So, specifically how is the human body going to metabolize these two pairs of food differently from one another:
Example 1:
1 Cup Fresh Squeezed orange juice - 112 calories, 21g sugar, 0g dietary fiber
vs.
1 Cup Pepsi - 100 calories, 27.4g sugar, 0 g dietary fiber
Example 2:
1 cup of green seedless grapes - 104 calories, 23.4 g sugar, 1.4 g dietary fiber
vs
1 high fiber chocolate cupcake - 103.7 calories, 15 g added sugar, 4.1 g dietary fiber
Look, I’m sure you’ll agree this information is hard to find. Here’s decent stab at explaining why (as well as an overall calorie cap) a daily limit of added sugar is vital:
And it goes on to talk about WHO rec of between 5-10%, which translates - because labelling isn’t clear - into about (for men) 32-34g / 125 calories / 8 teaspoons per day (at 5% added sugar in your diet)
That doesn’t really address my point. If I understand you correctly, fruit sugar doesn’t even get counted, only added sugar. So how does your body process the two pairs of food I mentioned differently?
In the first case - there’s more sugar in pepsi but not significantly more. 27.4 vs 21g. I certainly don’t think any casual eater would think to count all 27.4g of added sugar and completely disregard 21g of the same sugar because it happened to grow out of the ground. If it was 27.4g vs 2.1g, maybe, but they’re very similar in scale.
So if the fruit sugar “doesn’t count”, and it’s the same simple sugars as table sugar - fructose and glucose - then there must be some metabolic explanation.
And remember, in the first example we’re talking about fresh OJ so the dietary fiber has been filtered out entirely. My understanding from doctors who specialize in weight loss and from registered dietitians is that 100% fruit juice is an extremely sugary and calorie dense beverage, largely akin to soda, albeit with minimal amounts of other nutrients that soda lacks entirely.
In the second example, I found a recipe for a cupcake designed to be high in fiber. What I want to know is, specifically, how is the added fiber and the added high amount of sugar any worse than the natural fiber and natural high amounts of sugar in the grapes?
Orange juice versus Pepsi - fairly little. Some health benefits to moderate amounts of orange juice and my suspicion is that the juice is less likely to trigger the hedonic brain centers as powerfully as the soda does. But juice pretty takes away much of the structural advantage of being “real food.”
The other contrast is more significant.
The cupcake will have the glucose and fructose absorbed rapidly very proximally in the gut. I am a skeptic about the be all and all of the insulin spike that results but certainly it occurs, as do a wide variety of other messenger responses to that spike with many impacts in a variety of locations including the brain. Some of these impacts occur even before the sugars are absorbed by way of taste receptors within the gut … bypassing them is hypothesized to be one reason that bypass bariatric surgery seems to have impacts on T2DM even before substantial weight loss occurs. A spiking load of fructose hitting the liver leads to storage within the liver as fat which then impacts insulin resistance. The very sweet also hits the brain centers that drive a desire to eat past fullness while it is poor trigger of the brain centers that say that is enough: put simply a 104 calorie cupcake is a small cupcake, downed in maybe 30 seconds tops, and its sweetness and quick consumption increases the odds of someone eating more.
Grapes OTOH have the sugars packaged inside cells. That physical structure and other compounds included within the food makes the absorption of the glucose a more gradual affair, much of it occurring less proximally. The glycemic index and glycemic load of grapes is quite low. It is thus no surprise that they are on the short list of fruits whose metabolic impact lowers the risk of developing T2DM. A cup of grapes also usually takes a while to eat and is not so sweet tasting as to likely trigger overeating.
(I appreciate that the brain-behavior impacts are not your question, but they are nevertheless part of why high added sugar foods are associated with increased risk of obesity and T2DM while sugar in whole fruits and vegetables are not.)
The fiber item is less clear. One thing that must be noted is that “fiber” in real foods is not one thing, or even just soluble and insoluble fiber. Fiber in real foods are actually a wide variety of compounds. Does adding one particular form of fiber as a food supplement capture all the impact of eating the variety of different fiber forms that real fruits and vegetables contain? I cannot say that there is a definite answer to that but my strong suspicion is that it does not. But given that the exact mechanisms by which fiber rich foods impact metabolism are still in progress of being parsed out I cannot state how added fiber impacts metabolism differently the variety of fiber contained in whole fruits, vegetables and grains. In any case grapes, for all their overall excellent qualities, are not a great fiber source. Now trade out the grapes for raspberries? Same calories is nearly two cups with 16 grams of mixed soluble and insoluble sorts of fiber.
Thanks for that correction. I completely misread which part of the program it referred to.
I guess my main point was that even acknowledging that sugars and added sugars are important, they are not the entire picture when when it comes to proper diet and weight loss/control. The WHO also talks about percentage of diet from fats, what kind of fats, and overall calorie counts. Sugars are one important part of the equation, but the not the sole factor as the OP seemed to claim.
All calories may not be equal, but eating a whole lot of them can still be very bad.
But also I can virtually guarantee that if the op chooses foods each day based on achieving the goal of keeping added sugar under that limit (even with no calorie counting done at all, which is not what the op proposes), (s)he will end up eating fewer calories and likely burning more as well. Highly probable that the op will lose weight even eating as many raspberries as (s)he may desire. The op will be at lower risk of fatty liver, of T2DM, of cancers, and more, compared to a calorie counting diet high in added sugars. And the plan is much more likely to be adhered to long term.
Added sugars are, even if they were nothing else, a good marker of bad choices. If the op aims for those low numbers an overall healthy diet that very likely will result in fat loss and decreased risk for a variety of obesity related health conditions will almost unavoidably follow.
That piece I quoted says how your body processes the two sugars. natural sugar is fine. Added sugar contains fructose and once you hit your daily limit of that, it turns to fat because the storage facility (the liver) is full already.
Can’t deal with fibre.
Just accept natural sugar is okay - there’s even a clue in the name. You’re not going to hurt yourself unless you go mental at a grape festival 5 days a week. Honestly, move on from natural and fix on labelling.
You have 32g a day of sugar from labelling and everything slowly starts to change. Merry Christmas.
