You are mostly correct, but I believe his comment was in answer to my comment about sugar being like a cancer and eliminating sugars and I am referring to added sugars AND foods with high natural sugars (many fruits, gluten based foods and starchy vegetables). I still have 30-50 net carbs as my daily target and that includes all natural and added sugars but the limit is what prevents it from rising to the levels of causing metabolic damage. I think the way we added sugars to foods or refined foods to make them mostly sugar(carbs) has had an obvious effect on coronary diesease, diabetes, and cancer rates but the Sugar industry will never admit that haha.
"Investigators began recommending the use of fructose instead of glucose, because acutely, it did not raise blood glucose or insulin levels, in contrast to glucose. However, the price for this potential benefit is rapid uptake by the liver and often conversion into TG. Diets high in fructose are a common way to induce features of metabolic syndrome in rodent models (61). There is sufficient data from controlled dietary studies conducted for at least 4 wk to conclude that diets containing ≥20% energy as fructose are more likely to cause lipid abnormalities (hypertriglyceridemia due to VLDL increases in those with hyperinsulinemia and LDL-C increases in normoinsulinemic subjects) compared with diets containing ≥20% energy as either glucose or starch." I think high amounts of glucose or fructose eventually leads to same metabolic issues. However the conclusions still leaves off details when it mentions glucose or starch since fiber and fat pairing can affect blood sugar levels, not to mention exercise is not mentioned. Interesting study though.
sure. these are different sugars. they are metabolized differently. our bodies prefer glucose. table sugar, sucrose, breaks down into fructose and glucose in your tummy.
The problem is adding sugar at all, and way too much! Why do "Wheat Thins" taste so sweet? Sugar is sugar. it is all natural! there is no difference as far as the sugar goes whether you get it from an apple or out of a bag. its the amount of sugar that makes a difference. The apple has other things that are good for you. The bag only has sugar. But there is no such thing as artificial sugar that we would normally encounter. There is no one intentionally synthesizing sugar in the laboratory today. There are artificial sweeteners -- compounds that taste sweet but are not sugars. Talking about natural sugars is a little silly. All the sugars we consume regularly in our diets are natural sugars. We should be talking about our total sugar intake not whether it is natural. There are some sugars that we don't metabolize. I think mannitol is an example. not well absorbed and basically goes right through us unmetabolized, I believe, but it does taste a little sweet. But the main sugars we consume, fructose, glucose and galactose (lactose is the disaccharide of glucose and galactose) do metabolize, though each one a little differently but they are natural sugars. And again, sucrose is a natural sugar. It is a disaccharide and becomes two different monosaccharides in your tummy. same as if you ate a little fructose and a little glucose. If you want glucose and galactose instead, drink a little milk. Or how about pure glucose as its disaccharide? Then eat some maltose. Beer yeast loves glucose, and maltose is glucose dimer that becomes two molecules of glucose when its hydrolysed in our tummies. (That's why if you're making home brew you should never add sucrose. Fructose makes beer yeast mean as a hornet and will ruin the flavor. But you can add glucose. What we all need to understand is that all these are "natural sugars" . And we mustn't forget starches which are polymerized sugars, i.e., polysaccharides, they also break down in our bodies to simple sugars, but just more slowly. They are also natural. So it just doesn't make any sense for people to talk about natural sugars as if we would normally encounter anything but. These compounds are all carbohydrates and it would make a lot of sense to talk of our total carbohydrate intake. When we say we need to cut back on sugar what we really mean, but don't realize it, is we need to cut back on our carbohydrate intake. For sometime there was this thing about complex sugars, i.e. starches, and the diabetics had a fad name for it. The food industry was trying to promote starches as somehow healthier than simple sugars for diabetics. In truth the starches still caused a glucose rush, they just caused it two to three hours after ingestion instead of right away. Because as the starches hydrolysed these reached the simple sugar stage of hydrolysis nearly all at once about the same time after ingestion. Some starches took a little longer or a little less time to completely break down, that's all. That is they didn't slowly release glucose over a long period one molecule at a time, as the hype sort of implied they would. They still released a lot of simple sugars fairly rapidly but the release was delayed. This has to do with the hydrolysis mechanism. One molecule if sugar is not peeling of the end of the polysaccharide at a time. Instead they are breaking up into oligosaccharides all over, etc. and then breaking down further. They really are not something that diabetics could ingest with impunity, as the food industry was trying to suggest without coming right out and saying it... What was that word they invented? We need a diabetic to come to the rescue here. As a side note even the sugars in high fructose corn syrup are natural sugars made by a natural process using enzymes to break down starch from corn. Remember starch is just a polymerized sugar. And the sugars in high fructose corn syrup are identical to the same sugars from other natural sources.
It seems to me one's body is producing cholesterol for a reason. Instead of fighting this production or overproduction by attempting to forcefully lower cholesterol using drugs that are known to be harmful to your liver, the better idea may be to address the cause. I read somewhere one of the causes of excess cholesterol production is the body trying to protect itself, perhaps from acidic conditions or unfavorable lipid profiles caused by dietary choices such as too much sugars and caffeine. Soda with its carbonation (carbonic acid), sugar, and caffeine has to be a leading cause of high cholesterol. Many of the pharmaceuticals advertised on TV seem to address common ailments related to high caffeine use, drug use (prescribed or otherwise), poor diet, lack of excercise, insufficient hydration, and prolonged excessive stress. I would think the baseline nowadays would be to address all of the preceding issues before considering more radical treatment options such as aspirin(!). Most of the advertised pharmaceuticals have many serious side effects, are expensive to the entity paying for it, and don't even address the symptoms or underlying cause of the ailment in many cases. There have been a lot of class action lawsuits related to pharmeceuticals doing great bodily harm. The American Medical Association is not the friend of the American consumer. Be leery about taking advise from the medical industry. It is about maximizing profits of the medical profession, not curing disease in many cases. In summary, the best prevention for many common health issues is making good decisions on what you put into your body and the amount of regular excercise you perform.
Bingo! We seem to treat symptoms rather than the underlying causes. Got a cough ... suppress it Fever ... this'll lower your temp Rash ... this'll stop the itching Etc. etc. Modern medicine has a loooong looong way to go, imo.
Exactly...there is more money treating symptoms than curing the underlying. It is amazing how many people, myself included for many years, thought tylenol cured fevers haha. It just forces your body's internal temperature regulator to adjust lower temporarily while your body is still fighting off whatever caused the fever to begin with. I know there is no cure for the common cold but I am just using the example as to how most medicines work -treat the symptoms because you will feel better and keep taking it while your body's immune system does the real work and the medicine gets most of the credit. <not saying there is no value in medicine as a generalization, just how Big Pharma controls recommendations that feed their profits> Like Lipitor. Many people I have heard taking it are told to take it AND lose weight, reduce saturated fat/sugars, exercise etc. and their cholesterol number goes down and Lipitor gets all the credit rather than realizing a sugar pill and diet and exercise does the same thing cheaper. Best example is Ketogenic diet and IF were used successfully to treat epilepsy for decades. Want to know why it stopped being offered as a treament? Pharma came up with an anticonvulsant drug and the push came to prescribe that instead (cannot make money off of something you cannot patent).