4 ms·

The glycemic index of the carb also affects hunger to a large degree because of the resulting spike in blood sugar. Yes, if you are only going to eat X amount o

by fleitz 16y ago

The glycemic index of the carb also affects hunger to a large degree because of the resulting spike in blood sugar. Yes, if you are only going to eat X amount of calories they are pretty much all the same. One of the biggest carbs to cut is fructose as it interferes with the "im full" feeling. But if you are a sane human being that eats when they are hungry then cutting carbs especially high glycemic index carbs (fructose) can put your body in a state where weight loss will occur naturally because of reduced appetite.

matwood 16y ago
Sigh. So much misinformation in this thread. The main person who champions that fructose interferes with satiety is a guy named Lustig. Here some real research is placed up against Lustig's claims: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... and http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-... From the article: "Hold on a second…Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite [3-6]. But wait, there’s more. In studies directly comparing the effect of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake, one showed no difference [7], while the majority have shown the fructose preload resulting in lesser food intake than the glucose preload [8-10]. A recent review of the literature on fructose’s effect on satiety found no compelling case for the idea that fructose is less satiating than glucose, or that HFCS is less satiating than sucrose [11]. So much for Lustig’s repeated assertion that fructose and fructose-containing sugars increase subsequent food intake. I suppose it’s easier to sensationalize claims based on rodent data."
- pyre 16y ago
  > Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and > natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. > You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without > the accompanying glucose. According to Wikipedia, the most common HFCS mixture is a 55-45 fructose-glucose mix. How else would HFCS be sweeter tasting than sucrose?
  - matwood 16y ago
    55-45 is pretty close to equal. His comment still stands that get it would be hard to find straight fructose. In addition, I'm not sure how 55-45 invalidates any of his argument, mainly that glucose is always around with the fructose.

by fleitz 16y ago

matwood 16y ago

Sigh. So much misinformation in this thread. The main person who champions that fructose interferes with satiety is a guy named Lustig. Here some real research is placed up against Lustig's claims: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... and http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-... From the article: "Hold on a second…Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite [3-6]. But wait, there’s more. In studies directly comparing the effect of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake, one showed no difference [7], while the majority have shown the fructose preload resulting in lesser food intake than the glucose preload [8-10]. A recent review of the literature on fructose’s effect on satiety found no compelling case for the idea that fructose is less satiating than glucose, or that HFCS is less satiating than sucrose [11]. So much for Lustig’s repeated assertion that fructose and fructose-containing sugars increase subsequent food intake. I suppose it’s easier to sensationalize claims based on rodent data."

pyre 16y ago
> Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and > natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. > You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without > the accompanying glucose. According to Wikipedia, the most common HFCS mixture is a 55-45 fructose-glucose mix. How else would HFCS be sweeter tasting than sucrose?
- matwood 16y ago
  55-45 is pretty close to equal. His comment still stands that get it would be hard to find straight fructose. In addition, I'm not sure how 55-45 invalidates any of his argument, mainly that glucose is always around with the fructose.