7 ms·

Juiced fruits should be considered the same as full sugar soda and self regulated as such.

by edoo 8y ago

ZeroFries 8y ago
Except fruit juice has health benefits soda doesn't have. Fruit > juice > soda, and the gap between juice and soda is probably as high or higher than fruit and juice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045306/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045306/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330151949.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330151949.h... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519311/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519311/
- your-nanny 8y ago
  the response citing research supporting an unpopular opinion gets voted down while the post expressing the popular opinion that doesn't cite evidence gets voted up. hn voting isn't working. pretty typical
- windsurfer 8y ago
  Those sample sizes and selection are not very good. 22 volunteers in one, and 30 people in a narrow age range in the other.
- edoo 8y ago
  The problem is the sugar load. No amount of nutritional value can justify it. You can get those nutrients elsewhere without the insulin response.
  - throwaway415415 8y ago
    I hear that a lot in the US (never elsewhere), but the only people in bad shape are those who abuse fat food and sodas. I’ve never seen anyone obese from drinking too much fruit juice alone.
    - monetus 8y ago
      I have a feeling that that is because refined sugar is absorbed in a different manner than the sugar in juice. Just speculation though.
      - brianwawok 8y ago
        You can "prove" this by looking at the glycemic index. Glycemic index is not a napkin math thing, its done by making people eat or drink something and watching what their blood sugar does. A raw orange is 31-40. Orange juice is 46-54. Coca-cola is 63. I think juice may be a _LITTLE_ better than soda. I still choose to drink neither, and think I am better off for it.
        ZeroFries 8y ago
        Right, fruit > juice > soda, and the gap between juice and soda is as high or higher than the gap between fruit and juice. To say juice is only a little better than fruit is to say fruit is only a little better than juice. If you have access to fresh fruit, great, but not everyone does and having juice might be better than no fruit products at all.
        rsync 8y ago
        "I think juice may be a _LITTLE_ better than soda. I still choose to drink neither, and think I am better off for it." You're making a very good choice. I would encourage you and others to consider the raw oranges 31-40 GI as, itself, very high and akin to something like dessert or a special treat. Or, to expand on what a child of your post expressed: soda < juice < fruit < ... < ... < vegetables/nuts
        caf 8y ago
        It depends on the fruit / vegetable. Some fruits like avocadoes and olives have very low GI and some vegetables like potatoes have very high GI.
        throwaway415415 8y ago
  - jartelt 8y ago
    Exactly - If you eat an apple, you get a modest amount of sugar with some fiber to go with it. The fiber helps slow down the absorption of the sugar and lessens the insulin response. If you drink a big glass of apple juice, you get the sugar load of eating multiple apples and get none of the fiber. It's basically like drinking soda.
    - jvagner 8y ago
      How many apples does a persona typically eat in one sitting? How many apples' worth of sugar is in a 8/12/20 ounce serving of juice?
      - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        The usual claim on premium juice is 2 kg orange per 1 l (=1 kg) juice.
        TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Whole oranges? Orange peel / rind probably accounts for a significant portion of the weight of fresh oranges.
        semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        Whole oranges, for sure. I can't see how you'd lose 50% mass if you've already discarded the peel/rind. FWIW, citrus peel is a fairly valuable commodity since it's the raw material for production of limonene, which is a really good and biodegradable degreaser. IIRC it was discovered by NASA searching for a solvent for cleaning the space shuttle.
      - retsibsi 8y ago
        These read like rhetorical questions, but for anyone else who didn't know the answer to the second one: - apple juice has ~10g of sugar per 100ml; that's ~35g per 12 US fluid ounces. - Google tells me that apples (variety is unspecified) have 10g of sugar per 100g. 100g is a plausible weight for a single apple, so that's ~10g per apple.
  - ZeroFries 8y ago
    Except sugar isn't inherently bad for you. Refined sugar isn't great, because it lacks nutrients, but juice doesn't have that problem. Also, juice can improve insulin sensitivity and elicits a lower insulin response than most starches and proteins. The overall effect on glucose and insulin is neutral. Sugar also contributes to fatty liver less than saturated fat, and only does so in the context of a hyper-caloric diet. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261757046_Effect_of_Fruit_Juice_on_Glucose_Control_and_Insulin_Sensitivity_in_Adults_A_Meta-Analysis_of_12_Randomized_Controlled_Trials https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261757046_Effect_of... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29844096/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29844096/
    - bad_user 8y ago
      > Sugar also contributes to fatty liver less than saturated fat I’ve seen multiple studies suggesting otherwise, sugar being in general responsible for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. That assertion will also be difficult to swallow for anybody that ever attempted a Keto diet. I can talk from my own experience with Keto, when I binge ate butter on cheese (aka fat bombs). I did not lose any weight and yet my fatty liver was gone after the 3 months I was on it. Also all my liver’s ALT and AST levels are perfect. And I must insist on this point: no weight loss was involved. Also note that the study you’re linking, with 38 subjects observed for 3 weeks, is statistically insignificant and probably flawed, as small studies tend to be. When changing somebody’s macros, there’s an adaptation period involved and 3 weeks is not enough. The funny thing about all claims regarding the negative effects of saturated fats is that: (1) saturated fat was a major caloric source throughout all of human history and yes, we know what humans ate in the Paleolithic (2) human fat itself is saturated, you know, the one the body starts consuming when hungry Humans are equipped to efficiently digest saturated fats and starchy plants rich in glucose. Well actually humans only need about 600 calories from carbs, any excess is converted to fat. Fructose on the other hand is completely unnecessary, when digested it is converted to fat or glucose and it’s toxic in high doses. You can live your whole life without eating another gram of sugar. You can’t say that about saturated fat ;-) Funny enough you can make the same argument about the other public enemy, salt. You will literally die without enough sodium in your diet and yet the healthcare industry is fixated on vilifying salt, but not sugar. A huge double standard that has no basis in actual science.

Juiced fruits should be considered the same as full sugar soda and self regulated as such.

by edoo 8y ago

Juiced fruits should be considered the same as full sugar soda and self regulated as such.

Except fruit juice has health benefits soda doesn't have. Fruit > juice > soda, and the gap between juice and soda is probably as high or higher than fruit and juice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045306/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045306/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330151949.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330151949.h... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519311/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519311/

your-nanny 8y ago
the response citing research supporting an unpopular opinion gets voted down while the post expressing the popular opinion that doesn't cite evidence gets voted up. hn voting isn't working. pretty typical
windsurfer 8y ago
Those sample sizes and selection are not very good. 22 volunteers in one, and 30 people in a narrow age range in the other.
edoo 8y ago
The problem is the sugar load. No amount of nutritional value can justify it. You can get those nutrients elsewhere without the insulin response.
- throwaway415415 8y ago
  I hear that a lot in the US (never elsewhere), but the only people in bad shape are those who abuse fat food and sodas. I’ve never seen anyone obese from drinking too much fruit juice alone.
  - monetus 8y ago
    I have a feeling that that is because refined sugar is absorbed in a different manner than the sugar in juice. Just speculation though.
    - brianwawok 8y ago
      You can "prove" this by looking at the glycemic index. Glycemic index is not a napkin math thing, its done by making people eat or drink something and watching what their blood sugar does. A raw orange is 31-40. Orange juice is 46-54. Coca-cola is 63. I think juice may be a _LITTLE_ better than soda. I still choose to drink neither, and think I am better off for it.
      - ZeroFries 8y ago
        Right, fruit > juice > soda, and the gap between juice and soda is as high or higher than the gap between fruit and juice. To say juice is only a little better than fruit is to say fruit is only a little better than juice. If you have access to fresh fruit, great, but not everyone does and having juice might be better than no fruit products at all.
      - rsync 8y ago
        "I think juice may be a _LITTLE_ better than soda. I still choose to drink neither, and think I am better off for it." You're making a very good choice. I would encourage you and others to consider the raw oranges 31-40 GI as, itself, very high and akin to something like dessert or a special treat. Or, to expand on what a child of your post expressed: soda < juice < fruit < ... < ... < vegetables/nuts
        caf 8y ago
        It depends on the fruit / vegetable. Some fruits like avocadoes and olives have very low GI and some vegetables like potatoes have very high GI.
      - throwaway415415 8y ago
- jartelt 8y ago
  Exactly - If you eat an apple, you get a modest amount of sugar with some fiber to go with it. The fiber helps slow down the absorption of the sugar and lessens the insulin response. If you drink a big glass of apple juice, you get the sugar load of eating multiple apples and get none of the fiber. It's basically like drinking soda.
  - jvagner 8y ago
    How many apples does a persona typically eat in one sitting? How many apples' worth of sugar is in a 8/12/20 ounce serving of juice?
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      The usual claim on premium juice is 2 kg orange per 1 l (=1 kg) juice.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Whole oranges? Orange peel / rind probably accounts for a significant portion of the weight of fresh oranges.
        semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        Whole oranges, for sure. I can't see how you'd lose 50% mass if you've already discarded the peel/rind. FWIW, citrus peel is a fairly valuable commodity since it's the raw material for production of limonene, which is a really good and biodegradable degreaser. IIRC it was discovered by NASA searching for a solvent for cleaning the space shuttle.
    - retsibsi 8y ago
      These read like rhetorical questions, but for anyone else who didn't know the answer to the second one: - apple juice has ~10g of sugar per 100ml; that's ~35g per 12 US fluid ounces. - Google tells me that apples (variety is unspecified) have 10g of sugar per 100g. 100g is a plausible weight for a single apple, so that's ~10g per apple.
- ZeroFries 8y ago
  Except sugar isn't inherently bad for you. Refined sugar isn't great, because it lacks nutrients, but juice doesn't have that problem. Also, juice can improve insulin sensitivity and elicits a lower insulin response than most starches and proteins. The overall effect on glucose and insulin is neutral. Sugar also contributes to fatty liver less than saturated fat, and only does so in the context of a hyper-caloric diet. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261757046_Effect_of_Fruit_Juice_on_Glucose_Control_and_Insulin_Sensitivity_in_Adults_A_Meta-Analysis_of_12_Randomized_Controlled_Trials https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261757046_Effect_of... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29844096/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29844096/
  - bad_user 8y ago
    > Sugar also contributes to fatty liver less than saturated fat I’ve seen multiple studies suggesting otherwise, sugar being in general responsible for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. That assertion will also be difficult to swallow for anybody that ever attempted a Keto diet. I can talk from my own experience with Keto, when I binge ate butter on cheese (aka fat bombs). I did not lose any weight and yet my fatty liver was gone after the 3 months I was on it. Also all my liver’s ALT and AST levels are perfect. And I must insist on this point: no weight loss was involved. Also note that the study you’re linking, with 38 subjects observed for 3 weeks, is statistically insignificant and probably flawed, as small studies tend to be. When changing somebody’s macros, there’s an adaptation period involved and 3 weeks is not enough. The funny thing about all claims regarding the negative effects of saturated fats is that: (1) saturated fat was a major caloric source throughout all of human history and yes, we know what humans ate in the Paleolithic (2) human fat itself is saturated, you know, the one the body starts consuming when hungry Humans are equipped to efficiently digest saturated fats and starchy plants rich in glucose. Well actually humans only need about 600 calories from carbs, any excess is converted to fat. Fructose on the other hand is completely unnecessary, when digested it is converted to fat or glucose and it’s toxic in high doses. You can live your whole life without eating another gram of sugar. You can’t say that about saturated fat ;-) Funny enough you can make the same argument about the other public enemy, salt. You will literally die without enough sodium in your diet and yet the healthcare industry is fixated on vilifying salt, but not sugar. A huge double standard that has no basis in actual science.