6 ms·
Fruit juice? Does fructose vs sucrose make a difference?
by gaius 9y ago
Fruit juice? Does fructose vs sucrose make a difference?
- derrasterpunkt 9y agoNot really. Sucrose is basically one part glucose and one part fructose. I think what matters is the amount of sugars, not the type of sugars.
- chillwaves 9y agoThe way your body metabolizes different sugars is different and certainly important/relevant. The knowledge required to explain these differences is outside the scope of a comment here, but I encourage you to do some research on how different types of sugars are processed by the body.
- ClassyJacket 9y agoWhile I don't have any hard facts or make any claims about what it does, the idea that fruit juice = fruit is likely inaccurate. Juicing seems to leave behind the fiber and concentrate the sugar. It seems at least plausible that there's a significant difference in the digestion and metabolism of each.
- 2muchcoffeeman 9y agoThe fruit that they used to have probably didn't resemble what you can go out and buy these days either. However, I don't think that looking at what humans ate millennia ago is a good indication of what we should do.
- draw_down 9y agoGod forbid we discover our ancestors used to eat dirt.
- KitDuncan 9y agoWell they obiously had a lot more dirt in their diet by proxy. Fruit and veggies weren't as vigoriously washed as they are now, which is the reason why so many people are B12 deficient.
- bradyd 9y agoNot just our ancestors. People still eat it today. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/29/food.internationalaidanddevelopment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/29/food.internati...
- DrScump 9y agoMany animals do, especially clay compounds that absorb toxins. Even parrots have been observed eating clay soils in the wild.
- vatotemking 9y agoYou are right. I cant remember the link but there was an article I read that drinking fruit juice is not the same as eating fruits with fiber.
- DiThi 9y agoFructose alone is even worse than sucrose. Fructose doesn't produce satiety and it's metabolized by the liver in a similar way to alcohol. The difference it makes with fruit is the fiber content which is what satiates and slows down fructose abortion.
- mchannon 9y agoI predict in the coming years we'll start referring to fructose as "bad sugar" and glucose/dextrose as "good sugar". Sucrose, being a 50/50 compound of the two, thus inherits "bad sugar" from the fructose produced during digestion. HFCS actually ranges from 29-55% fructose vs. glucose/dextrose (the highest being available in CocaCola freestyle soda machines), and can be better or worse than sucrose, but is generally equivalently bad. Since dextrose is basically incompatible with acidic beverages and solidified candies, we're not likely to see fructose going away, either as a direct ingredient or as a metabolite. If natural concentrated sweetener is considered, attempts to replace sucrose and fructose with dextrose-only sources like plain old corn syrup (POCS), rice syrup, and honey, might achieve some fascinating health benefits. Is it possible that we're fat only because we're eating the wrong kind of sugars?
- aaron695 9y agoGlucose tastes awful so I wouldn't call it a good sugar.
- resf 9y ago> Is it possible that we're fat only because we're eating the wrong kind of sugars? Nope, we are fat because there are many cheap sources of calories, particularly deep fried foods.
- wutbrodo 9y agoThe objections to this oversimplified reasoning usually point to the fact that, among other things, there's a documented rise in obesity among animals as well, across a variety of situations (feral rats, lab primates, domestic pets). Lab primates aren't eating out more or getting less PE in schools, which suggests the possibility of an environmental factor[1]. > particularly deep fried foods. This is a very early-1990s understanding of nutrition. The low-fat recommendations pushed by the USDA and followed to a large degree by American consumers didn't do anything to halt the obesity rise, because excess dietary fat isn't nearly as bad for you as excess processed carbs/sugar. [1] https://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-animals.html https://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-animals.html
- dade_ 9y agoSucrose is one part fructose and one part glucose. Our cells use glucose for energy directly, the liver metabolizes fructose. This similarity of fructose and alcohol is the basis of the whole sugar is a poison. Fruit is fructose, which is probably why we are to be able to metabolize it, but fruit is generally very high in fibre and around the size of a serving or 2. Serving sizes of juice and additive sugars are extremely oversized.
- bilbo0s 9y agoA bit off topic, but if anyone reading through could explain to me why adding fiber to fructose makes it "good" sugar I'd be really interested. I mean, I know that we need fruits and vegetables in our diets. I know that apples and carrots are good for me. I just don't understand why fructose without fiber is bad? Right now... I just don't drink the soda or sugary drinks at all. But I don't really understand the science behind my decision. Because I'm eating apples and carrots all the time ???
- bokglobule 9y agoWhat people really mean here is that when you consume real fruit, you get fiber, vitamins, other micro nutrients and, yes, fructose. But the quantity of fructose you get is relatively small. When people drink fruit juice, basically all they are getting is the fructose (with water). And you're getting many apples worth at one time. This overloads the liver which starts turning the fructose into fat. So eating an apple or an orange is fine. Drinking fruit juice is not. Hope this helps
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- CuriousSkeptic 9y agoBesides just making it hard to overdose on sugars it also slows down digestion to soften the blow, can even reduce amount absorbed at all. More info https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fibre-reduces-insulin-how-to-lose-weight-x/ https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fibre-reduces-insulin...
- 9y ago
- KludgyPerl 9y agoYes. Fructose loads your liver. Sucrose breaks down into glucose (which can be metabolized by many cells) and fructose (which is only metabolized by the liver). They're both bad when over consumed. This laid out pretty well in The Obesity Code by Jason Fung (a real doctor).
- CuriousSkeptic 9y agoAs I understand it, it's worse still. While glucose can be directly converted to energy, fructose must first be turned into fat, before it can be converted to glucose or ketones. This fat will be stored in the liver. The more fat you have in your intestines the more insuline resistance you'll have. Which in the end will screw with the entire body in various ways.
- eonwe 9y agoFructose is mostly turned into glucose and metabolized that way. No need to turn it first to fat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructolysis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructolysis
- aaron695 9y ago> Fruit juice Coke is better. It has similar sugar levels but has caffeine which seems to be good for you. Fruit juice with fibre is better, but like most loopholes really you are just fooling yourself. So at least with coke people seem to know it's bad so I'd stick with that. Then there's coke zero that's better for you than water. (But not for your teeth)
- DrScump 9y agoFor many consumers (including the USA), Coke has HFCS instead of sucrose.
- URSpider94 9y agoIn brief, current reasoning is that it does make a difference, and fructose is, if anything, worse for the body, metabolically speaking.