5 ms·

I have had this discussion so many times. I am pretty sure he means "refined" fructose. I.e. fructose that is removed from it's natural state and put into conce

by hristov 11y ago

I have had this discussion so many times. I am pretty sure he means "refined" fructose. I.e. fructose that is removed from it's natural state and put into concentrated form. This is basically crystaline sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Fructose that appears naturally is not bad for you. The reason is that naturally appearing fructose usually appears with fiber, and it is usually locked in plant cells. The body is perfectly capable of processing this type of sugar. There was a Japanese study where they had people eating large quantities of apples, and their blood tests did not show any of the negative effects associated with large intakes of sugar. The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey. Also carbohydrates are not sugar by default. Sugar is a type of carbohydrate, but there are other types that are not sugar and should not be confused with it. There are also other sugars (other than fructose) that are perfectly fine. Glucose for example, is not bad for you in any form. There has been a lot of confusing science done by assuming that all carbohydrates are the same. And while they do have similar molecular structures the way they are processed by the body is very different so they should not be mixed up.

ascagnel_ 11y ago
> The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey. Can you give some background on that? Is it because it's already been processed once (by bees), and therefore is less suitable for human consumption?
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I suspect, based on the lines previous to that one, that the statement is related to the fact that honey is basically a high-sugar syrup. About 80% sugar, 17% water, and 3% "other". For comparison, simple syrup is 50% sugar and maple syrup is 60% sugar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition_and_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition_and_compositio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup#Food_and_nutrition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup#Food_and_nutrition
- Vraxx 11y ago
  I think it has more to do with the fact that it is just sugar by itself. From what I've read, it seems that the context of the sugar is what makes it "good" or "bad", and that's because the effects are measured by how the food affects your blood sugar after eating it. This is tracked in the metric known as the glycemic index of the food. In fruits it is with fiber and plant material that results in your body taking longer to process the sugars and doesn't give a spike in blood sugar like eating the same amount of refined sugar would. Honey is just lacking the context that most natural sugars is and is thus more similar to refined sugar.
kyberias 11y ago
I recommend you take a couple of university courses in biochemistry and energy metabolism and then reread what you just wrote. It's full of inaccuracies that you probably notice right away after you've learned the basics.
- Vraxx 11y ago
  I've only learned what I know on the topic from readings here and there, as well as a bit of research when I'm particularly motivated. I personally didn't notice an overwhelming amount of incorrect information in his post, so I'd like to take the opportunity to ask you to expand on this comment. I don't think anybody is going to take some university courses in order to find the factual inaccuracies in a comment they wrote, so to be more helpful in dispelling these inaccuracies, could you possibly list a few of them and some relevant terms/concepts that could act as stepping stones to finding the correct information? I am genuinely curious on the topic, but don't always know where to start and what data is bought and paid for by biased parties. I have been curious since first asked strong proponents of "natural" foods to explain to me why fruit full of sugar was supposedly better for you than anything else full of the same amount of sugar and received answers that were quite unsatisfactory.
- hristov 11y ago
  Ok then what are some of the inaccuracies? I am just curious so I know I will get my monies' worth when I take those biochemistry courses.

by hristov 11y ago

ascagnel_ 11y ago

> The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey. Can you give some background on that? Is it because it's already been processed once (by bees), and therefore is less suitable for human consumption?

jdmichal 11y ago
I suspect, based on the lines previous to that one, that the statement is related to the fact that honey is basically a high-sugar syrup. About 80% sugar, 17% water, and 3% "other". For comparison, simple syrup is 50% sugar and maple syrup is 60% sugar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition_and_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition_and_compositio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup#Food_and_nutrition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup#Food_and_nutrition
Vraxx 11y ago
I think it has more to do with the fact that it is just sugar by itself. From what I've read, it seems that the context of the sugar is what makes it "good" or "bad", and that's because the effects are measured by how the food affects your blood sugar after eating it. This is tracked in the metric known as the glycemic index of the food. In fruits it is with fiber and plant material that results in your body taking longer to process the sugars and doesn't give a spike in blood sugar like eating the same amount of refined sugar would. Honey is just lacking the context that most natural sugars is and is thus more similar to refined sugar.

kyberias 11y ago

I recommend you take a couple of university courses in biochemistry and energy metabolism and then reread what you just wrote. It's full of inaccuracies that you probably notice right away after you've learned the basics.

Vraxx 11y ago
I've only learned what I know on the topic from readings here and there, as well as a bit of research when I'm particularly motivated. I personally didn't notice an overwhelming amount of incorrect information in his post, so I'd like to take the opportunity to ask you to expand on this comment. I don't think anybody is going to take some university courses in order to find the factual inaccuracies in a comment they wrote, so to be more helpful in dispelling these inaccuracies, could you possibly list a few of them and some relevant terms/concepts that could act as stepping stones to finding the correct information? I am genuinely curious on the topic, but don't always know where to start and what data is bought and paid for by biased parties. I have been curious since first asked strong proponents of "natural" foods to explain to me why fruit full of sugar was supposedly better for you than anything else full of the same amount of sugar and received answers that were quite unsatisfactory.
hristov 11y ago
Ok then what are some of the inaccuracies? I am just curious so I know I will get my monies' worth when I take those biochemistry courses.