Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fructose in sugar certainly is the same as in fruit ... but that's only HALF the story, now isn't it? The other half of sugar molecules in sucrose (refined sugars) are glucose. And the body responds completely differently to the two -- even at the same time when they are consumed bonded together -- glucose stimulating insulin and undergoing that processing to become first-line preferred energy
This doesn't read well because you're conflating "sugar" with sucrose, in a scientific context "sugar" refers to a class of molecules one of which is sucrose. Regardless, you are speaking as if fruit only contains fructose and that is far from the truth. Fruits contain a variety of sugars, sometimes fructose doesn't even occur at high levels. For example a banana contains 2 grams of sucrose, 5 grams of glucose, 5 grams of fructose and 11 grams of maltose.
Sugar is just a molecule so there is nothing beyond being equivalent at the molecular level. The fructose, sucrose, etc that occurs in fruit is no different than the sugars found in refined sugar products. So, as I said, sugar is sugar and the difference between eating fruit and refined sugar is the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Wells is an anthropologist and geneticist. He studies the history of human physiologic and cultural evolution.....But it certainly does have direct relevance to what we are discussing -- and the author's credentials are vastly greater than yours on the subject.
If I was discussing anthropology perhaps he would be relevant, but I was discussing nutrition and he has no credentials in that field.
... If I was discussing anthropology perhaps he would be relevant, but I was discussing nutrition and he has no credentials in that field.
... as opposed to yourself?
Actually, user, he has excellent credentials to present on nutrition ... especially in that his field of expertise includes the study of the historical dietary habits and foundations of the human species and how that has shaped our evolution.
I'll get back to you a bit later on the sugar silliness you continue to flog ... the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is greater than 98% similar ... and yet, I perceive differences in how we look, act, respond, and other trivia. You enjoy your day.
I already mentioned this, but they could make oven roasted "fries" and make a variety of bean/vegetable patties to put on their burgers. The burgers would have to use light sauces.
Can you imagine, how much fewer burgers they would sell, if you made bean/vegetable patties on their burgers with light sauces. It would put fast food restaurants out of business, as that is not what those that are vegetarians want to eat. Oven roasted fries, take too long to cook, to make them practical for fast food restaurants, and they taste different which is what people do not want. There are not enough vegetarians to support the fast food industry.
Fast food restaurants have attempted to add vegetarian burgers and other foods to their menu over the years, and found they did not sell except in rare occasions.
Just as the schools are finding following the first lady's demands for school lunches, the kids don't eat them and quit buying lunches and throwing most of the food away. They are changing back to food the kids will eat, even if they have to give up federal food and money to do so. Without eating a good lunch the kids are doing poor in school in the afternoon.
Can you imagine, how much fewer burgers they would sell, if you made bean/vegetable patties on their burgers with light sauces. It would put fast food restaurants out of business, as that is not what those that are vegetarians want to eat. Oven roasted fries, take too long to cook, to make them practical for fast food restaurants, and they taste different which is what people do not want. There are not enough vegetarians to support the fast food industry.
Fast food restaurants have attempted to add vegetarian burgers and other foods to their menu over the years, and found they did not sell except in rare occasions.
Just as the schools are finding following the first lady's demands for school lunches, the kids don't eat them and quit buying lunches and throwing most of the food away. They are changing back to food the kids will eat, even if they have to give up federal food and money to do so. Without eating a good lunch the kids are doing poor in school in the afternoon.
LMAO ... A "good lunch" is a McDonald's lunch?
But I do agree with you, OT, about how the fast-food restaurants would fail if they tried to exist profitably on a healthy menu ... they are dietary crack-houses ... they rely on addiction ... and on cheap labor subsidized by government assistance programs to keep the workers' lives afloat ... a win-win all around [for the sociopaths and pencil-necks]!
The populace will never "desire" healthy fare -- as long as the "crack-dealers" are protected by governmental corporate welfare in its various nefarious forms, which allows them to study human weakness and market to it.
Can you imagine, how much fewer burgers they would sell, if you made bean/vegetable patties on their burgers with light sauces. It would put fast food restaurants out of business, as that is not what those that are vegetarians want to eat. Oven roasted fries, take too long to cook, to make them practical for fast food restaurants, and they taste different which is what people do not want. There are not enough vegetarians to support the fast food industry.
Fast food restaurants have attempted to add vegetarian burgers and other foods to their menu over the years, and found they did not sell except in rare occasions.
You're talking about something else here, there are two separate questions here:
1.) Can a fast-food business create healthful foods at a low cost and serve it as it currently serves food?
2.) Would there be demand from the general public for a healthful fast-food restaurant?
I've been discussing #1, you're talking about #2. As for oven roasted fries, you wouldn't prepare them per order you'd prepare them in batches. Subway prepares their own bread and this would work in a similar way. As for vegetarians, I didn't say anything about them, making something "vegetarian" doesn't mean its healthy. The point of using bean patties is that they are low-cost yet still healthful....something you can't say about their cheap fatty beef patties. Bean patties allow for more complex and varying flavors as well which will be critical in getting the burgers to taste good once you remove all the fatty sauces.
Regardless, I didn't 'say anything about whether the general public would demand healthful fast-food, I said that its possible to create a large fast-food chain that produces healthful foods. That is to say, the fundamental problem at this point is that the public is hooked on junk food not that the businesses can't be profitable selling healthful foods.
Actually, user, he has excellent credentials to present on nutrition ... especially in that his field of expertise includes the study of the historical dietary habits and foundations of the human species and how that has shaped our evolution.
Spencer wells hasn't conducted a single study on nutrition and he has no educational background in nutrition, as such the idea that he has "excellent credentials" in this field is truly strange.
Our historical dietary habits, which we know very little about, don't tell us much about nutrition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
.. the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is greater than 98% similar ... and yet, I perceive differences in how we look, act, respond, and other trivia. You enjoy your day.
Yep....but the sugar in fruit is 100% similar to the sugar in refined sugar products. Sugar is sugar.
Spencer wells hasn't conducted a single study on nutrition and he has no educational background in nutrition, as such the idea that he has "excellent credentials" in this field is truly strange.
Our historical dietary habits, which we know very little about, don't tell us much about nutrition.
Forgive my mirth at a drowning poster. What is "truly strange" is your assertions ... you don't have any credentials either, yet present yourself as an expert. Well's credentials in science -- including related to nutrition as being discussed here -- are really quite substantial. As I wrote: this is a significant area of focus for his expertise.
Btw: the history of human dietary habits is very substantially known indeed. Enormous amounts of scientific research and discovery on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Yep....but the sugar in fruit is 100% similar to the sugar in refined sugar products. Sugar is sugar.
Yes. It is. And no, the various FORMS of sugar are not the same. Which is why the various forms, that you cite, have different names, among other things, user. Sucrose, fructose, glucose, maltose - et al - are "sugars" in macro-definition ... which macro-classification is sub-divided by various micro-realities that are each individually recognized differently by our bodies. The human system even recognizes sucrose, built of equal fructose and glucose, as being two different forms of sugars -- which it divides and processes individually in two separate processes.
... you don't have any credentials either, yet present yourself as an expert. Well's credentials in science -- including related to nutrition as being discussed here
You have no idea what my credentials are because I don't mention them here and it doesn't matter. If you want to think Wells is some expert on nutrition you go ahead and do that, but nobody in the field would consider him such.
And no, we know very little about what people were eating before written history. All we have are some fossils, archaeological specimens, etc....and you can't derive that much information about diet from these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Yes. It is. And no, the various FORMS of sugar are not the same. Which is why the various forms, that you cite, have different names, among other things, user. Sucrose, fructose, glucose, maltose - et al - are "sugars".
As I said, "sugar" is a class of molecules. I have never suggested that the different types of sugar are identical, if they were identical we wouldn't have different names for them. What I did say was that the sugar contained in fruit is no different than the sugar that is contained in refined sugar products....you denied that this was true and you're mistaken. The sucrose in fruit is no different than the sucrose in table sugar, the fructose in fruit is no different than the fructose in high fructose corn syrup and so on. What was all the point of this? Anybody that suggests "sugar" causes problems has to explain why the same molecules in fruit don't cause problems. There is an answer to this.....and its not "because the sugars are different".
You have no idea what my credentials are because I don't mention them here and it doesn't matter. If you want to think Wells is some expert on nutrition you go ahead and do that, but nobody in the field would consider him such.
And no, we know very little about what people were eating before written history. All we have are some fossils, archaeological specimens, etc....and you can't derive that much information about diet from these.
It's obvious whatever your credentials might be if you have any, they aren't in nutrition, user.
As for what people ate before recorded history: we sure do know a very great deal indeed. Pretty much every pre-history archeological site studied includes extensive examination of clues relating to what the people ate: tools for hunting, gathering, preparation and cooking of the foods acquired, preserved food remnants, site dating compared to historical site ecology from what pedogenesis of the time and place would support on up to the actual resulting resident flora and fauna ... skeletal evidence and analysis, skin and hair remnant analysis, ... geneticists, like Wells, for instance, can also trace dominant traits and factors of populations and their limitations and compare them with historical ecology for yet more proofs ... it's forensics, like CSI on the Tee-Vee. The reservoir of knowledge on pre-historical diet is very deep.
As I said, "sugar" is a class of molecules. I have never suggested that the different types of sugar are identical, if they were identical we wouldn't have different names for them. What I did say was that the sugar contained in fruit is no different than the sugar that is contained in refined sugar products....you denied that this was true and you're mistaken. The sucrose in fruit is no different than the sucrose in table sugar, the fructose in fruit is no different than the fructose in high fructose corn syrup and so on. What was all the point of this? Anybody that suggests "sugar" causes problems has to explain why the same molecules in fruit don't cause problems. There is an answer to this.....and its not "because the sugars are different".
You are making things up here, user. I am the one who has pointed out, repetitively, that we wouldn't have different names for the different types of sugars if they weren't different. You are ascribing statements and meanings to me that are flat out not true. I never denied the fructose molecules in fruits and in sucrose are the same. I pointed out how they are individually recognized, wherever the body finds them, and separated and processed differently. And the key function we haven't covered in this tangent is the manner of conveyance -- especially as relates to the Glycemic Index of various foods, which governs how rapidly the uptakes and response and processing takes place.
This is, in fact, the key to why all grains can be addictive sources of sugar. All grains have a moderate to high GI. The more the grains are processed, the greater the ease with which they give up their sugar. But even whole grains once milled provide sufficient surface to give rapid access to glucose -- this to the point where typical whole grain breads have nearly the same GI as a Snickers candy bar.
Interestingly this GI function can be slowed dramatically by the addition of fat -- through butter or lard or oils ... to the point where an ordinary processed flour tortilla, infused with such fats as they are, has a GI of considerably less than half that of whole wheat.
Quote:
The humble flour tortilla tops any list of low glycemic index grain products, with a GI of only 30. Yet whole-wheat bread has a GI of 71!
whole wheat bread (71) has the same glycemic index as white bread (72), and both of them have a higher GI than white table sugar (62)! This fact alone proves that the theory of “complex carbs” is flawed: our bodies absorb the sugar from that ‘healthy’ whole wheat bread more quickly than…pure table sugar.
In conclusion, the theory of “complex carbs” is a red herring. The primary driver of glycemic index is fat content. The more fat, the slower the sugars (‘carbohydrates’) are digested, and the lower the glycemic index.
Now I can go on and on but we are so far off the topic that I am going to call it quits. You are being intentionally obtuse as is your pleasure. And I have made my points well enough to have had enough fun with this one. Continue arguing without me. Perhaps OT will come back for more.
I'll leave you with some informative reading on Glycemic Index and its relationship to obesity
Quote:
Excessive fat consumption is widely believed to be a major dietary cause of obesity.3–5 For this reason, the US Department of Health and Human Services,6 American Heart Association,7 and American Diabetes Association8 currently advocate consumption of a low-fat diet in the prevention and treatment of obesity. Recently, however, the relationship between dietary fat and obesity has been questioned on several grounds9–11 including that both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses have failed to show a consistent association between dietary fat and body fat,10,,12,13 and that weight loss on low-fat diets is usually modest and transient.9,,14 In addition, and perhaps of particular significance, mean fat intake in the United States reportedly has decreased over the past 3 decades, from 42% to ∼34% of dietary energy,11,,12,15,16 whereas the rate of obesity has continued to rise.
Another dietary factor that may influence body weight is the glycemic index (GI). GIFNa is a property of carbohydrate-containing food that describes the rise of blood glucose occurring after a meal.17 Foods that are rapidly digested and absorbed or transformed metabolically into glucose have a high GI.18–22 The GI of a meal is determined primarily by the amount of carbohydrate consumed and by other dietary factors affecting food digestibility, gastrointestinal motility, or insulin secretion (including carbohydrate type, food structure, fiber, protein, and fat).17–24 Most starchy foods commonly eaten in North America, chiefly refined grain products and potatoes, have a high GI, exceeding that of even table sugar by up to 50%.22 By contrast, vegetables, legumes, and fruits generally have a low GI.22 High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating, and Obesity
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
