RE: Why Sugar Is Public Enemy Number 1
What do you mean by "a protecting layer of fibre"? Fibre plays no role in the metabolism of fructose. Please don't link to sites that have zero science in them. They are populist echo sounding boxes. Take this statement from your link
Domesticated fruits are almost always larger, sweeter, and contain less fiber than their wild counterparts. Compare a Golden Delicious apple to a crab apple and you begin to get the picture.
- Crab apples are domesticated and NOT wild. They were bred for their pollination agnosticism and long pollination periods. Every orchard will have a fixed percentage of crab apple trees for this purpose.
- The term "wild" is inappropriate for plants and is not used by scientists.
- Not all apples are bred to be sweet and is just one category from several.
- Not all apples are bred for their juice.
8-10 apples are needed for 1 litre of juice. A large glass of juice will contain about 2 apples and more sugar than an equal sized glass of coke. Are you seriously telling me that you could not eat 2 apples.
The feeling of satiety (being full) is not triggered by fibre or bulk but by the level of sugar. The presence stops ghrelin production (the hunger hormone). This is the reason that you have something sweet after your main course - to make you feel full. If you eat something sweet before your main course you don't generally want to eat it.
Sugar is as much of a poison as water.
I gave you a disclaimer on the link, first one i found that showed that sucrose levels vary in fruit. If you don't like it that's fine, I don't claim anything on it (and said as much), I was just trying to show that levels vary from fruit to fruit. So... I won't defend anything else there (maybe it is right maybe it is wrong).
I'm saying that it is far easier to eat a glass of juice than a whole apple. The first source I found said 3 'medium' sized apples per cup of juice. A cup is pretty small but isn't that far off from your estimate. Fiber slows how fast the sugar hits your system, it slows digestion. It limits how much you can consume and how quickly. Sugar is made up of fructose and glucose. The fructose does not engage satiety glucose may very well do that. I'm only saying that fructose is bad. We've probably made some mistakes moving back and forth between those two terms (sugar/fructose/glucose) since they aren't the same thing but it is easy to do.
I feel like this is digressing as a discussion somewhat. This is what I'm starting from:
sorry it is so long, i'd feel it is worth watching. There isn't any pseudoscience there but you could probably tone down the alarm a bit.
Short version is here:
Worth watching no matter who you are but if you don't feel like watching the takeaway is that fructose (50% of sugar) is processed by the body mostly the same way as alcohol and has most of the same long term affects on health. It is not, in any way, comparable to water consumption.
If you can reference how fructose metabolism isn't bad for you I'd be interested.
I think everyone knows that different fruit contain different amounts of sugar. In the same way a dog is different to a cat regarding mammals. It would be a bigger shock if different fruit all contained the same amount of sugar and all of the same type.
The ease of eating/drinking does not change how the various sugars are metabolised
Can you show how it does this in scientific terms as it was not what I was taught. It also would counter your argument if it were true - Something that slowed down digestion would not stop ghrelin production fast enough. Thus eating an apple as opposed to drinking the juice would leave you feeling hungry.
Instead of giving me a video that is 1 hour 30 to watch can you link to the times in video that back up your arguments.
As far as the sugar is as bad as alcohol video goes that is a strawman falacy - Pick something which has a negative image and make a tenuous link to it and in doing so spread that negative image to said argument. This is a mendacious practice that is used by populists to bend reality.
So to the main point on sugar, it is not a straw man. The way the human body metabolizes fructose (50% of sugar) is very similar to how it metabolizes alcohol. That isn't surprising because we just ferment sugar to get alcohol. There isn't any tenuous link, they are very similar compounds that are processed by the body similarly. The video isn't associating them because they have many of the same long term health affects (which they do) or because alcohol is a convenient boogie man but because they are handled by the body the same. The comparison is appropriate, for specifics we can look at these three examples.
Examples of metabolizing 120 calories of glucose, alcohol, and sugar. If you have to watch just one watch the sucrose (sugar) metabolism at 56:30.
Glucose metabolism (50% of sugar, not bad for you)
(starts roughly 45min in and finishes at 51:10)
Ethanol metabolism (alcohol, not good for you. An acute toxin)
(starts at... 51:10, could skip to 53:00 ends roughly 56:30)
Sucrose Metabolism (this is Sugar, made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose)
(starts roughly 56:30 ends around 1:10)
I included the fruit reference to show that fruit contains different amounts of fructose relative to each other (not sugar) and you're right this line of discussion is probably a distraction from the main point I'm trying to make, which is that fructose (and by extension sugar with is 50% fructose, or "high fructose corn syrup" which is 55% fructose) is bad for you. The fiber discussion is also a distraction at this point. Weather it has no effect, slows or speeds absorption of fructose how the body metabolizes fructose is the same.