4 ms·

Most national dietary guidelines encourage eating fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on the vegetables. The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on th

by kleiba 6y ago

Most national dietary guidelines encourage eating fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on the vegetables. The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.

HighlandSpring 6y ago
Most national dietary guidelines are backed by weak epidemiology and are rarely corroborated by RCTs. See: the food pyramid
- nerdponx 6y ago
  And are instead heavily guided by ag industry lobbyists.
nordsieck 6y ago
> The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar. I think a more precise way to say this is: Due to the water and fiber in fruit, they tend to be more satiating than eating something like a chocolate bar on a calorie normalized basis.
- kleiba 6y ago
  True, but what I was actually trying to get at was that sugar is also metabolized differently in the presence of fibre.
- darkerside 6y ago
  My understanding is that the fiber literally prevents absorption of fructose, so parent's comment is accurate
  - scythe 6y ago
    Fructose is almost always absorbed; fructose malabsorption causes SIBO. Fiber reduces the glycemic index and makes fruit more satiating. Glucose aids the absorption of fructose preventing SIBO. But in the case of fruit w.r.t. gout, the missing variable here is that while fructose increases the production of uric acid, potassium promotes the excretion of uric acid [1], and fruits are generally an excellent source of potassium while soft drinks contain little to none. The net effect of fruit on gout risk seems to be inconclusive [2] but it's clear that fruits are much less concerning than foods with added fructose. Since a significant fraction of Westerners do not consume enough potassium [3], and potassium is key to preventing hypertension and stroke [4,5], it is bad advice to suggest reducing fruit consumption for most people, unless you're already eating like Steve Jobs. 1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253815337844 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381... 2: https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/58/7/1133/5475481 https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/58/7/... 3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0270929506001434 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02709... 4: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11906-011-0197-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11906-011-019... 5: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-2006-933305 https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/1...
tubularhells 6y ago
You are comparing the sugars in raw food to something heavily processed. That's not a good comparison.
- Someone 6y ago
  It is in the context of dieting advice “instead of a chocolate bar, eat an apple” (still about 20 grams of sugar/100 kcal, but about half that of the chocolate bar)
  - watwut 6y ago
    The other difference is that while chocolate bar makes you more active if you was low on sugar, you are still quite empty, hungry and looking for more to eat shortly after you ate that. If you eat apples, you hit limit soon. Apples also do not work all that much if you actually need quick energy when doing something straining. It does not have that "immediately feel better" effect (which motivates you eat more and more).
- jiofih 6y ago
  Sugar is sugar. HFCS is a bit worse, but in the broader context of dietary intake it will make no difference.
  - sqldba 6y ago
    That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science. Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management.
    - mcny 6y ago
      >> Sugar is sugar. >> That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science. I agree with you on this one but from what I've heard, it is likely that fruit juices and smoothies are not fruits either. If that is correct, the message can get very muddied. >> Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management. Now we need to not only treat different sugars differently, we also need to treat the delivery methods differently as well. At some point, the message just becomes too complicated.

by kleiba 6y ago

HighlandSpring 6y ago

Most national dietary guidelines are backed by weak epidemiology and are rarely corroborated by RCTs. See: the food pyramid

nerdponx 6y ago
And are instead heavily guided by ag industry lobbyists.

nordsieck 6y ago

> The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar. I think a more precise way to say this is: Due to the water and fiber in fruit, they tend to be more satiating than eating something like a chocolate bar on a calorie normalized basis.

kleiba 6y ago
True, but what I was actually trying to get at was that sugar is also metabolized differently in the presence of fibre.
darkerside 6y ago
My understanding is that the fiber literally prevents absorption of fructose, so parent's comment is accurate
- scythe 6y ago
  Fructose is almost always absorbed; fructose malabsorption causes SIBO. Fiber reduces the glycemic index and makes fruit more satiating. Glucose aids the absorption of fructose preventing SIBO. But in the case of fruit w.r.t. gout, the missing variable here is that while fructose increases the production of uric acid, potassium promotes the excretion of uric acid [1], and fruits are generally an excellent source of potassium while soft drinks contain little to none. The net effect of fruit on gout risk seems to be inconclusive [2] but it's clear that fruits are much less concerning than foods with added fructose. Since a significant fraction of Westerners do not consume enough potassium [3], and potassium is key to preventing hypertension and stroke [4,5], it is bad advice to suggest reducing fruit consumption for most people, unless you're already eating like Steve Jobs. 1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253815337844 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381... 2: https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/58/7/1133/5475481 https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/58/7/... 3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0270929506001434 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02709... 4: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11906-011-0197-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11906-011-019... 5: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-2006-933305 https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/1...

tubularhells 6y ago

You are comparing the sugars in raw food to something heavily processed. That's not a good comparison.

Someone 6y ago
It is in the context of dieting advice “instead of a chocolate bar, eat an apple” (still about 20 grams of sugar/100 kcal, but about half that of the chocolate bar)
- watwut 6y ago
  The other difference is that while chocolate bar makes you more active if you was low on sugar, you are still quite empty, hungry and looking for more to eat shortly after you ate that. If you eat apples, you hit limit soon. Apples also do not work all that much if you actually need quick energy when doing something straining. It does not have that "immediately feel better" effect (which motivates you eat more and more).
jiofih 6y ago
Sugar is sugar. HFCS is a bit worse, but in the broader context of dietary intake it will make no difference.
- sqldba 6y ago
  That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science. Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management.
  - mcny 6y ago
    >> Sugar is sugar. >> That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science. I agree with you on this one but from what I've heard, it is likely that fruit juices and smoothies are not fruits either. If that is correct, the message can get very muddied. >> Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management. Now we need to not only treat different sugars differently, we also need to treat the delivery methods differently as well. At some point, the message just becomes too complicated.