There’s been much debate here about fructose and why it was worse (or not, depending on your opinion) than glucose. Amazingly enough, the most ardent defenders of fructose were R.D’s! Well, here’s an article written by an R.D with a Ph.D that might shed some light on the topic
I’m waiting for Stronghold and Skynett to come into this thread with something to the effect of “ONE STUDY WITH AN N OF 6? LOLFAG”
both studies are extremley misleading…
they are looking at acute results…there needs to be a long term study…
problem is nobody consumes 100g of glucose by itself…glucose does not convert to fat under normal circumstances…glucose causes fat gain through an indirect means…ingesting 100g of glucose means that the body won’t burn 400 calories later in the day…400 cals of fat…
You have to understand that the human body is extremely complex and has tons of compensating mechanisms in place…you increase one thing, it will decrease something else…otherwise, we would have died off a long time ago…
[quote]D Public wrote:
both studies are extremley misleading…
they are looking at acute results…there needs to be a long term study…
problem is nobody consumes 100g of glucose by itself…glucose does not convert to fat under normal circumstances…glucose causes fat gain through an indirect means…ingesting 100g of glucose means that the body won’t burn 400 calories later in the day…400 cals of fat…
You have to understand that the human body is extremely complex and has tons of compensating mechanisms in place…you increase one thing, it will decrease something else…otherwise, we would have died off a long time ago…[/quote]
Totally agree about the need for longer-term studies, but the evidence presented here are still quite interesting. And as Capped pointed out, 6 subjects are hardly a solid clinical trial. We need more proof, but the data does point out some key differences that could make fructose a less desirable choice than glucose, health-wise.
The argument about no one ingesting glucose alone is what’s misleading in the context you put it though, for all things being equal, the subjects were given fructose alone as well, and both sugars and the g+f combination also had marked differences.
Now you’re right about the fact that we don’t eat any sugar as is, but with the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup and other fructose derivatives present in the vast majority of convenience, pre-packed foods, I think it’s a factor that does matter.
Fruits are not the same, as their caloric density and relative carb-content can’t be compared to manufactured foods. I mean, 1 cup rasberry has 14 gr of carbs, with 4-6 being fibers. Compare that to an equal amount of snack foods like crackers or sugary foods like a Twinkie…
All in all, I don’t think fructose in itself is evil, but the trend of the industry to include it as the sugar-equivalent of choice is.
Personally, i don’t like high fructose foods…i hate the overly sweet taste…
there is also good research suggesting that overconsumption of fructose raises the worst form of cholesterol…
However, I don’t think it makes people fatter than glucose…
what i meant by glucose by itself is that we don’t eat carbs by themselves…we also eat fat and protein…we eat mixed meals…and those mixed meals have effect on other mixed meals we consume…
it is the combined effect throughout the day that determines if we store fat in the long term…
[quote]Zen warrior wrote:
[quote]D Public wrote:
both studies are extremley misleading…
they are looking at acute results…there needs to be a long term study…
problem is nobody consumes 100g of glucose by itself…glucose does not convert to fat under normal circumstances…glucose causes fat gain through an indirect means…ingesting 100g of glucose means that the body won’t burn 400 calories later in the day…400 cals of fat…
You have to understand that the human body is extremely complex and has tons of compensating mechanisms in place…you increase one thing, it will decrease something else…otherwise, we would have died off a long time ago…[/quote]
Totally agree about the need for longer-term studies, but the evidence presented here are still quite interesting. And as Capped pointed out, 6 subjects are hardly a solid clinical trial. We need more proof, but the data does point out some key differences that could make fructose a less desirable choice than glucose, health-wise.
The argument about no one ingesting glucose alone is what’s misleading in the context you put it though, for all things being equal, the subjects were given fructose alone as well, and both sugars and the g+f combination also had marked differences.
Now you’re right about the fact that we don’t eat any sugar as is, but with the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup and other fructose derivatives present in the vast majority of convenience, pre-packed foods, I think it’s a factor that does matter.
Fruits are not the same, as their caloric density and relative carb-content can’t be compared to manufactured foods. I mean, 1 cup rasberry has 14 gr of carbs, with 4-6 being fibers. Compare that to an equal amount of snack foods like crackers or sugary foods like a Twinkie…
All in all, I don’t think fructose in itself is evil, but the trend of the industry to include it as the sugar-equivalent of choice is.
[/quote]
Well said.
The problem with fructose isn’t so much “fructose vs glucose”. Its “fructose in every damn thing you eat”.
Fructose is a “little worse” than glucose. Multiply that “little worse” by 3 meals a day, multiplied by a lifetime. Its gonna add up.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Well said.
The problem with fructose isn’t so much “fructose vs glucose”. Its “fructose in every damn thing you eat”.
Fructose is a “little worse” than glucose. Multiply that “little worse” by 3 meals a day, multiplied by a lifetime. Its gonna add up.
[/quote]
Bingo!