 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2005Sugar from Fruit
Does sugar from fruit, turn into fat if we don't burn it off? If it does turn into fat. How much sugar is there approximately in each fruit? Yeah. Roughly 10 grams. > Does sugar from fruit, turn into fat if we don't burn it off? If it > does turn into fat. How much sugar is there approximately in each > fruit? > Does sugar from fruit, turn into fat if we don't burn it off? It doesn't matter what it is, if you don't burn it off anything will turn to fat. > If it does turn into fat. How much sugar is there approximately in each > fruit? The sugar content doesn't matter. Fresh fruit is good for you! It's loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! Patrick Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight Watchers, Atkins, South Beach, LC and most other diets for weight loss or health. > The sugar content doesn't matter. Fresh fruit is good for you! It's > loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! > > Patrick :: Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight :: Watchers, Atkins, South Beach, LC and most other diets for weight :: loss or health. In many studies of "corrupt nutrition science'" fruit consumption associates with lower disease incidence. :: <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message :: news:1111206130.031637.95570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... ::: The sugar content doesn't matter. Fresh fruit is good for you! ::: It's loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! ::: ::: Patrick -- Juhana > Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight Watchers, > Atkins, South Beach, LC and most other diets for weight loss or health. Huh? Cranberries have proved to be effective against urinary tract infections. And Weight Watchers are not against fruit consumption. South Beach is a softened version of Atkins so I would suspect they're not against eating some fruit. And Atkins is a hack/money making scheme, so if you're following that nonsense good luck. Patrick > > The sugar content doesn't matter. Fresh fruit is good for you! It's > > loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! > > Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight > Watchers, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Patrick You forgot to mention that gold standard hack/money making scheme Blood type diet. > > > The sugar content doesn't matter. Fresh fruit is good for you! > It's > > > loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! So in other words, if you just ate fruit, could you go fat. Huh? Cran***BERRIES*** are a different class of food. They are ***BERRIES**** Weight Watchers is against most fruit consumption. They are very high carbs. Not many follow your nonsense. When does your book or published papers come out on your nonsense? That's what I thought. > > Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight > Watchers, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's > > > loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! >Huh? Cran***BERRIES*** are a different class of food. They are >***BERRIES**** > >Weight Watchers is against most fruit consumption. They are very high carbs. WTF cares what Weight Watchers thinks? > Huh? > Cran***BERRIES*** are a different class of food. They are ***BERRIES**** Not according to these folks: http://www.cranberryinstitute.org/ http://www.thefruitpages.com/berries.shtml > Weight Watchers is against most fruit consumption. They are very high carbs. You're misinformed. Weight Watchers What you can eat: All foods are assigned point value. Generally, the higher the fat or calories, the more points assigned. Low-point foods include fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, poultry, seafood, lean meats and grains. What you should avoid: Lots of high-calorie or high-fat foods, too large of a serving. Sources: Weightwatchers.com BTW - carbs have the same number of calories as protein. And it's all about calories ingested vs burned. > Not many follow your nonsense. When does your book or published papers come > out on your nonsense? Nonsense, huh? I'm: height - 5' 9" weight - 168 lbs waist - 29.5" Performance - I run 1 1/2 miles in 9:32 / half marathon (13.1 miles) in 1:39:17 Age - 42 Daily Fuel - lots of veggies (all types), lots of fruit (all types), generous portions of whole grain breads and cereals (all types), some non-fat dairy, some fish or lean meat (all types), a handful of nuts/seeds (all types), touch of extra virgin olive/canola oil, lots of spices, cup of green tea, and occasionally a chunk of dark chocolate. Organic varieties of everything as much as possible. School - one formal nutrition class; been reading about nutrition (newsletters, books/magazines) for 20 years. Now it's your turn. Patrick > > > Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight > > Watchers, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It's > > > > loaded with tons of nutrients. Eat up! >Weight Watchers is against most fruit consumption. They are very high carbs. No, but GI is high. GL on the other hand, except for bananas is low, to very low. That is patently untrue insofar as the low carb diets are concerned. If anything, low carb diets advocate a greater consumption of whole food carbs like fruits and vegetables and a restriction of processed and refined carbs and sugars. TC > Not according to proponents of yeast infection, blood type, Weight Watchers, > Atkins, South Beach, LC and most other diets for weight loss or health. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Patrick > ..., turn into fat ... http://www.ecologos.org/obese.htm Laurie If you think eating a lot of fruit is going to make you fat, you're on another planet. Avoid unsaturated fatty acids and oxidized cholesterol and you can eat almost anything. Sugar in fat can vary quite a bit. Some fruit is high in fructose, like apples and grapes. Others are high in glucose. Some have quite a bit of sucrose. I got a chart from the FDA a few years back, and interestinly, a cheeseburger on a bun had almost as much overall sugar content as a papaya (for the exact same serving size). You body was designed to run on sugar, particularly glucose. However, it doesn't satisify for long if that's all you eat, which is why the combination of high glucose foods with highly saturated fatty acid foods, such as coconut products, is such a great combination. If you know anything about the health of peoples on such diets, you would never listen to the so-called nutritional experts in the USA, who only know how to spread misinformation and outright lies. The document I mentioned in the last post was from the USDA. Per 100 gram portion sizes, raw strawberries had 5.7 grams of sugar, whereas the cheeseburger was 5.1. Papaya was 5.9. If you fear sugar, fruit isn't the problem, it's the other foods with "hidden sugar," because you don't think of sugar when you think of a cheeseburger. > If you think eating a lot of fruit is going to make you fat, you're on > another planet. Avoid unsaturated fatty acids and oxidized cholesterol > and you can eat almost anything. Excesses of anything can cause problems. > You body was designed to run on sugar, particularly glucose. However, it > doesn't satisify for long if that's all you eat, ... It would be pretty suicidal if one ate only sugar. Your use of the word "satisfy" is unclear; are you referring to that old familiar lump in the stomach resulting from the fact that animal-centric diets are pretty indigestible and sit in the stomach for hours?? The lingering "feeling full" sensation after eating is merely a result of indigestion, and should not be sought after or praised as some sort of accomplishment. After one has gone through detox and stabilized on a diet approximating the natural one for our tropical ape species, to wit: raw fruits/veg and small amounts of nuts/seeds (for the protein addicts) that lump vanishes and one feels much lighter and energetic at all times. Dump the lump!! Laurie > If you think eating a lot of fruit is going to make you fat, you're on > another planet. Avoid unsaturated fatty acids and oxidized cholesterol > and you can eat almost anything. Who's on another planet? > Sugar in fat can vary quite a bit. Some fruit is high in fructose, > like apples and grapes. Others are high in glucose. Some have quite a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > content as a papaya (for the exact same serving size). You body was > designed to run on sugar, particularly glucose. Your body runs on fat. The glucose is for the brain (or oxygen starved muscles in exercise). MattLB Did not know you were an Atkins' Diet advocate, MattLB - that, and all your "essential fatty acids," will mean you won't be around much longer to post your nonsense. You might want to explain exactly how a diet nearly devoid in fat would damage a person, since the body makes all classes of fatty acids on its own. But then again, explaining your ridiculous claims has never been a strong suit of yours, has it? As to the other person, claiming that proteins, fatty acids, or carbohydrates are somehow different than plant sources when these are often the identical molecules demonstrates such a lack of biochemical understanding that there is no need to comment, except to say that experiments have been done illuminating how fat and sugar, eaten together at the same meal is much more satisfying than a "high-carb" meal, or a meal of mostly carbs and proteins. The only problem with fat is the oxidative stress you get from unsaturated fatty acids. If I hadn't spent over 4 years researching these various claims, and seeing the results for myself (in myself) I would not be posting here. But the good thing about nutritional claims is that if you listen to the wrong ones, you kill yourself, so you get what you deserve for being biased, aggressively ignorant, stubborn, etc. > Did not know you were an Atkins' Diet advocate, MattLB Nor did I. Where did I say that? >- that, and all > your "essential fatty acids," will mean you won't be around much longer > to post your nonsense. You might want to explain exactly how a diet > nearly devoid in fat would damage a person, since the body makes all > classes of fatty acids on its own. You need to do more research. > But then again, explaining your > ridiculous claims has never been a strong suit of yours, has it? The thing is I never make the claims that you attack. You twist things around to your personal crusade and then put words in people's mouths. In contrast, you make definitive claims and then turn a blind eye to contradictory responses. > As to the other person, claiming that proteins, fatty acids, or > carbohydrates are somehow different than plant sources when these are > often the identical molecules demonstrates such a lack of biochemical > understanding that there is no need to comment, except to say that > experiments have been done illuminating how fat and sugar, eaten > together at the same meal is much more satisfying Satisfying? How is that quantified scientifically? What do you mean by it? MattLB >Did not know you were an Atkins' Diet advocate, MattLB - that, and all >your "essential fatty acids," will mean you won't be around much longer >to post your nonsense. You might want to explain exactly how a diet >nearly devoid in fat would damage a person, since the body makes all >classes of fatty acids on its own. But then again, explaining your >ridiculous claims has never been a strong suit of yours, has it? Really?? Neither C18:2 omega-6 nor C18:2 omega-3 can be formed, only C18:2 omega-9 from C18:1 omega-9 Humans can make the Mead acid, which MattLB has pointed out before, is polyunsaturated. That is all a human needs - otherwise, I'd be dead by nor or at least I'd be showing "deficiency" symptoms. You can confuse textbook dogma with the total body of scientific evidence, which is what you appear to be doing. As for MattLB: I'm not going to play these games any longer. IF you think your ideas have been misrepresented, then tell us what you are trying to communicate. You said the body runs on fat. The reality is that it can run on mostly fat, and I have no problem with that, as long as the fatty acids are saturated - that is my diet now, a bout 30% saturated fatty acids. However, the least amount of work is required to convert glucose to ATP. The body can make all classes of fatty acids even in the absence of all fat, though short chain fatty acids, for instance, are useful in non-energy terms. Omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are basically poison for humans - it just takes time for the "chronic disease" to afflict you. This is not me talking, but the evidence, which is overwhelming. Go to pubmed, search for oxidative stress, arachidonic, or lipid peroxidation for starteers. >for instance, are useful in non-energy terms. Omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are >basically poison for humans - it just takes time for the "chronic >disease" to afflict you. This is not me talking, but the evidence, >which is overwhelming. Go to pubmed, search for oxidative stress, >arachidonic, or lipid peroxidation for starteers. I have a feeling you have read only a part of the literature. Without arachidonic acid, blood will not coagulate at all and you will bleed to death of a simple scar or even less. I guess that an analysis of your cells will show that you still have some arachidonic acid around. It is made quickly if your diet contain the slightest amounts of omega-6 acids. To remove that from diet, you need to eat artificial saturated fats where all PUFA are removed from 2-positions of the glyceride molecule. I have a feeling such a diet would be quite expensive. Almost all fats do contain omega-6 acids. It is almost impossible to get an omega-6 deficient diet in the Western hemisphere today. There is only one way, to eat fat free diet with low-carbohydrate roots containing lots of cyanides like cassava to get away PUFA. In the medium range eat sheep meat from sheep grazing grass all year never fed "power food"(commercial food made from meat left overs, maize, wheat, unrefined soy beans all high in omega-6 acids and very low in omega-3 etc.) > The reality is that it can run on mostly fat, References?? How come modern biochemistry texts fail to reveal this?? > ... my diet now, a bout 30% saturated fatty acids. Don't know the difference between weight percent, the standard used in real science, and the arithmetically-absurd concept "percent calories from xxx"?? http://www.ecologos.org/pcf.htm > to convert glucose to ATP. Strange, Google search for [site:edu "convert glucose to ATP] finds only 5 usages of this phase, none from a recognized educational institution, so it seems this is just another of your made-up shibboleths. http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookATP.html#Links for instance is about "ATP AND BIOLOGICAL ENERGY" and the concept of 'converting glucose to ATP' is not mentioned. > The body can make all classes of fatty > acids even in the absence of all fat, Thus, no fat is required in human diet? Thus, all 1835 hits currently on PubMed for "essential fatty acid" are hoaxes?? > Omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are basically poison for humans... Citations?? Or is this merely a "creative writing" exercise?? Laurie >> The reality is that it can run on mostly fat, > References?? How come modern biochemistry texts fail to reveal this?? "modern biochemistry texts"? read any biochemistry textbook or any nutrition science textbook and it will be in there. the body does run mostly on fat, secondary (and parallel to that) on glucose (brain/red blood cells/central nervous system/muscles..). did you ever wonder why we store fat in the body? >> ... my diet now, a bout 30% saturated fatty acids. > Don't know the difference between weight percent, the standard used in > real science, and the arithmetically-absurd concept "percent calories from > xxx"?? using weight percent in nutrition science makes not sense whatsoever. the approx. need of calories for someone per day can be calculated, the need of "grams of food total per day" can not. > http://www.ecologos.org/pcf.htm the statement put on this page is mostly wrong. calories can not only be determined in the calorimeter but also, and more efficiently by by measuring O2 and CO2 contents of breath. > Strange, Google search for [site:edu "convert glucose to ATP] finds only > 5 usages of this phase, none from a recognized educational institution, so > it seems this is just another of your made-up shibboleths. http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/glycolysis/dir.html glucose is however not "converted" to atp- atp is built by the phosphorylation of adp in the process of glycolysis... but thats hair-splitting... >> Omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are basically poison for humans... > Citations?? Or is this merely a "creative writing" exercise?? i'd like to read a study as well, that comes to this conclusion. >the body does run mostly on fat, secondary (and parallel to that) on glucose >(brain/red blood cells/central nervous system/muscles..). did you ever >wonder why we store fat in the body? Only if insulin is very low and glucagon is high. Then it runs on fatty acids. Otherwise mobilization of fatty acids is turned off, like in people having diabetes taking insulin or where fat cells answer insulin signal, but muscle cells don't take up glucose, only adipocytes. It also seems like if glucagon depression at high glucose fails (quite often the case in diabetes II), glucagon and adrenaline stimulation may stimulate glycogen breakdown, while insulin still push adipocytes to take up sugar and produce fat, instead of mobilizing fatty acids as an answer to high glucagon. That may in fact be one mechanism how people first get fat and later is diagnosed with diabetes. Maybe a kind of diabetes already was active when people started to get fatter, because huge mental stress at work combined with physical inactivity and high sugar/fat intake. >>the body does run mostly on fat, secondary (and parallel to that) on >>glucose [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > insulin signal, but muscle cells don't take up glucose, only > adipocytes. this is not true. read it up in a textbook. 1) fatty acids are the main energy substrate in the body. compare glycogen storage ammount with fat storage ammount. compare beta oxidase with glycolysis. look at efficiency of gluconeogenesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 288863&dopt=Abstract 2) mucle cells DO take up AND store glucose. ever heard of muscle glycogen? what they cannot do is regenerate lactate (built in the muscle out of glucose in anaerobic metabolism) back to glucose. this can only be done in the liver due to a lack of an enzyme in the muscle cells. look up "glycolysis" "glycogen" "oxidative metabolism". >2) mucle cells DO take up AND store glucose. ever heard of muscle glycogen? >what they cannot do is regenerate lactate (built in the muscle out of >glucose in anaerobic metabolism) back to glucose. this can only be done in >the liver due to a lack of an enzyme in the muscle cells. > >look up "glycolysis" "glycogen" "oxidative metabolism". Of course muscle in a healthy individual take up glucose and produce glycogen. But I was talking about when insulin is gone, that is, you are diabetic. Then cells do not take up glucose. That's why blood glucose is high. Duh Can I just say something? I tried both a low-fat high carb high fibre wholefood diet (yes, no crap) for 6 months, and also prior to this I did my own version of Atkins - again wholefood, with lots of vegetables etc. and, no crap. Why, if we can create all our EFAs ourself, did my skin dry right out doing the low-fat thing - did I also develop anxiety and an inability to concentrate, and put on about 7 lbs whilst watching my food intake??? I do much better basing my diet on fat/protein/veggies, although I can't take it as low as some people. My concentration is also better, providing my brain with enough glucose to function but no more seems to work. Ideas? Lou |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.