WTF, for some reason I read that as you trying to drop some massive lb's of poop and cut them out of your drinking habits. I need a couple more hours of sleep
Originally posted by: ric1287
well i am trying to drop some massive lb's, and cut any form of pop out of my drinking habits. I drink alot of water, but also alot of Dole 100% juice. So i am wondering if it is 'bad' for my diet to be having that much sugar (albeit from fruit).
Anyone know?
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: Auryg
Calories are calories.
Absolutely not in regards to the OP's goals. Calories from certain foods have different thermic response on the body. Different foods have very different effects on hunger and energy levels, and consequently results. Different foods have different effects on body composition...ie eating a diet rich in lean meat, whey/casein shakes, whole fruit, whole vegetables, nuts and fish will increase lean body mass and decrease fat mass with calories remaining equal and the person not lifting a finger.
Source: John Berardi, Phd in nutrient science and a renowned professional sports nutrition adviser.
A Calorie Is Not A Calorie
While the gurus and pundits of the past believed that all calories were created equal, and while much of the current dietetics herd still believes it, I'm here to tell you why it just ain't true. To do so, I'll focus on three main arguments: the Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF), cross-cultural studies, and the effects of isoenergetic diets using different foods.
The TEF, as I've said many times before, represents the additional caloric expenditure (above resting metabolism) that it takes to digest, absorb, and process the food you eat. Studies on the thermic effect of different foods have been important in describing the different effects of the macronutrients on metabolism.
The TEF lasts from between one to four hours after eating a meal. When adding up the thermic effects from each of your meals, this extra metabolism represents between 5% and 15% of your total daily energy expenditure. Therefore, if your daily energy expenditure is 3,000kcal, about 150 to 450kcal of that comes from the TEF. Interestingly, different macronutrients tend to have different effects on metabolism.
Welle et al. (1981) and Robinson et al (1990) demonstrated that during a normal six hour period of rest and fasting (basal metabolism), subjects burn about 270kcal. When eating a single 400kcal meal of carbs alone (100g) or fat alone (44g), the energy burned during this six hour period reached 290kcal (an additional 20kcal). Interestingly, when eating 400kcal of protein alone (100g) the subjects burned 310kcal during this six hour period (an additional 40kcal). Therefore, protein alone had double the thermogenic power vs. fat or carbs alone!
Swaminathan et al (1985) demonstrated that during a normal fasted 90-minute period, both lean and obese subjects burned about 110 calories. When consuming a 400kcal, fat only meal (44g), the lean subjects burned 125kcal (+15kcal) while the obese subjects only burned 110kcal (+0Kcal).
This indicates that while the lean can up-regulate metabolism when eating fat, the obese may, in fact, have a defect in their thermogenic response mechanisms for fat. When fed a 400kcal mixed meal (P+C+F), the lean subjects burned 130kcal (+20kcal) during the 90-minutes while the obese burned 125kcal (+25kcal) during the 90-minutes. These data demonstrate that mixed meals are more thermogenic than fat only meals and that lean people have a better TEF response than the obese.
So now that you understand that different macronutrients (at the same energy intake) can alter calorie balance within a single meal, here's another interesting argument for the fact that all calories were not created equal. In a study by Campbell et al (1991), 6,500 rural and urban Chinese were compared to the US population norms for energy intake, macronutrient breakdown, and health. This is an important comparison due to the fact that obesity and cardiovascular diseases have reached epidemic proportions in North America while the prevalence is much lower in China. Check out this data on average nutrient intake:
U.S.:
* Energy - 30.6kcal/kg
* Carbohydrate - 42% (224g)
* Fat Intake - 36% (85.86g)
* Alcohol - 7%
* Fiber - 11g/day
* Protein - 15% (80g)
* % Protein from Animal - 70% (56g)
* BMI (wt/ht*ht) - 25.8
China
* Energy - 40.6kcal/kg
* Carbohydrate - 71% (504g)
* Fat Intake - 14% (44g)
* Alcohol - 5%
* Fiber - 33g/day
* Protein - 10% (71g)
* % Protein from Animal - 11% (7g)
* BMI (wt/ht*ht) - 20.5
It's interesting to note that while the Chinese have a much lower body mass index (as represented by weight in kg/height squared in meters) and a much lower prevalence of obesity and cardiovascular disease, they eat about 25 to 35% more food than we do! Now, the Chinese tend to be more active than we are, but when the numbers were corrected for activity levels, the differences remain!
Looking at the macronutrient breakdowns, the Chinese are on a high-carb diet, no doubt. But they're not fat. And while their protein intake, by percentage, is lower, they do get nearly as much total protein, by gram amount, as we do. Perhaps we could take a lesson from the Chinese. Clearly not all calories are created equal because if they were, the Chinese would be fatter than we are! But instead, the average 100kg Chinese person gets to enjoy a 4060kcal diet while keeping his lean physique.
I know, I know, that study is only epidemiological and therefore lacks some explanatory power, but stay tuned as I present two final studies to demonstrate that all calories were not created equal.
In a study by Demling et al (2000), the researchers demonstrated that food choice and timing could be more important than total calorie intake. Before the study began, overweight police officers, eating about 2100 to 2300kcal per day, tipped the scales at 216lbs with 56lbs of fat mass (25% fat) and 158lbs of lean mass. They were eating about 74g protein, 380g carbs, and 56g fat. Since this is clearly a hypocaloric diet, they should've been losing weight. But they weren't.
Unfortunately for these poor guys, they were eating only 10% of their calories at breakfast and a whopping 50% of their calories right before bed. In addition, 50% of their carb intake was sugar! After diet counseling, these guys still ate the same diet in terms of macronutrients, but they ate 70% of their calories during the active parts of their day and 80% of their carb intake was complex and low on the GI scale. At the end of twelve weeks these guys lost 3lbs of weight and 5lbs of fat while gaining 2lbs of lean mass. And this was without changing exercise habits! While these changes weren't huge, it's clear that food choices and timing make a difference.
In another study by T-mag's own Doug Kalman et al (2001), Doug showed that a 1200kcal, high-protein (47%P, 36.5%C, 16.5%F) diet was more effective than a 1200kcal, moderate-protein (24.5%P, 48.3%C, 27.2%F) diet for fat loss. Subjects in the high-protein group lost 6.3lbs of body weight, 5.3lbs of fat weight, and only 1lb of lean weight. The moderate protein group lost 3.1lbs of body weight, no fat weight, and 4.5 whopping pounds of lean weight. Try telling these subjects that a calorie is a calorie!
In the end, there clearly are ways to burn more calories and lose more weight while eating diets differing in macronutrient content but similar in energy intake. In addition, if you can believe it, there may even be ways to eat more food while staying leaner. Just ask the Chinese.
http://johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/leaneating_1.htm
Specifically in regard to fruit juice...imagine digestion as a chemical reaction. What happens when you increase surface area? The reaction is faster. The carbs in fruit juice are absorbed near instantly, supplying your body with excess glycogen, or "energy". Your body stores this excess as body fat. Compared to something like whole fruit, meat, etc, the energy is slowly released and your body burns it on the fly with no excess, and less frequent hunger.
Additionally, juices are composed of a lot of fructose. Too much fructose will overload your liver and cause fatigue. Normally this doesn't happen in nature because fruit contains so little and fiber slows down absorption, but when you have the sugary extract by itself in a large shot, it happens.
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: TheTony
Yes 100% fruit juice has a lot of (natural) sugar. Better sucrose than HFCS, though.
Huh? Fructose IS a natural sugar.
Originally posted by: manowar821
Natural sugar from fruit is GREAT, don't let people tell you otherwise. Especially if you drink it with a good meal. Stay away from fake sugars, too. Splenda is nasty and does weird things to you. It's like diet pop with the aspartame. ::shudders::
I always drink 100% juice, cranberry and pomegranate are my favorites. Apple is always a good choice, too.
If you have one beer a day, it's not bad at all. In fact, I've heard that it's good for you, kind of like a glass of wine or champagne.
Just a word of advice, if you're looking for health, don't get the "healthy foods/drinks" that are over engineered with fake sweeteners and chemicals. Drink and eat real food. Water, juice, wine, real chicken or even beef is fine. Just as long as it doesn't have fake ingredients and you don't eat 20 pounds of meat in a day, you'll be good. Watch out for that "splenda" logo... Dodge it like it's made of AIDS.
The article dances around glycemic index of certain foods without directly touching on it. It doesn't compare macronutrients to themselves, but rather to other macros (a protein is different than a carb). The glycemic index of fruit is rather low (<50), meaning that it is absorbed slowly and doesn't provide an insulin spike. While this is beneficial in controlling hunger, it doesn't negate the contribution of total calories to your diet. You can play around with GI numbers all you want, it simply determines when and how fast the calories will be burned/stored. Fructose contains calories like any other sugar. Just because it comes from fruit doesn't change that. If you're looking to drop weight you need to limit your caloric intake. Now if you budget for this ahead of time and the fruit juice doesn't put you over your limit, than go for it. But there's nothing magic about fructose.
Fructose is a simple carbohydrate unit, but it's structurally different from glucose. Due to its structure, it can possibly cause GI problems and/or decrease fluid uptake with exercise. Fructose, unlike other simple carbs, has to be "treated" in the liver and it reaches the muscle slowly.
1. A fructose (Fru)-enriched diet induces a mild increase in blood pressure associated with hyperglycaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, and insulin resistance, resembling the human 'syndrome X', being an useful model to study hypertension and type 2 diabetes
LL: So many complex carbohydrate foods are stripped, processed and refined that these choices don't offer the fiber and other nutrients they once did. Overall, I guess what I'm saying is that the simplistic notion of "complex equals good" and "simple equals bad" once had merit, but has become rather archaic, at least in application to real world (read as: fast, pre-packaged, yummy and artificial) choices. Now we have complex carbs that are heinous just as there are situations when good ol' simple sugars are great.
Complexity is just one way to classify a carbohydrate molecule, of course. Individual monosaccharide units (generally glucose, fructose and galactose) can be treated just as differently by the body as longer chains thereof. Fructose, for example, is absorbed at the intestinal wall more slowly (facilitated diffusion) than glucose (active transport). In the liver, fructose can also enter glycolysis (the metabolic pathway used to break down sugars in our cells) in such a way as to bypass its rate-limiting step.
Without enzymatic control (PFK for those who care), the pathway forms undue amounts of acetyl Co-A that are ultimately made into triglycerides. In other words, fructose, despite slower absorption and lesser insulin response, is itself lipogenic. That's quite different from the way glucose is metabolized, even though both are monosaccharides.
JB: Right you are, Dr. Fructose. Cy, how 'bout explaining the difference between what one might consider simple vs. complex carbohydrates or, in more scientific terms, monosaccharides vs. polysaccharides.
Cy Willson: Well, structural nomenclature such as monosaccharides, oligosacchardies and lastly, polysaccharides, which contain many linked units of monosaccharides, had classically been described as either "complex" or "simple" in terms of their structure. For example, since glucose or fructose are monosaccharides, they were classified as "simple" and thus were thought to be bad for you. The more linked units there were, the more "complex" it was considered and the better it was for you in terms of insulin release and overall health.
So, with this reasoning, they said that starch, a polysaccharide that is found in foods like rice, potatoes, etc., would be the most beneficial in terms of health and improving body composition. With this same reasoning, they assumed that fructose, a monosaccharide, was terrible since it should cause a high release of insulin.
The problem with these distinctions? Well, when you take a look at starch, it's merely a very long chain of glucose molecules that, once hydrolyzed, form free glucose or dextrose and cause a very high insulin response. As we know, insulin is a potent lipogenic hormone (fat building or generating) and if insulin levels are raised for a prolonged period of time, this doesn't allow lipolysis (fat breakdown) to occur. Thus a person will gain fat.
Now, fructose on the other hand doesn't require insulin in order to be stored as glycogen and thus it causes a very small increase in insulin secretion, making it better than starch in terms of the insulin response. In other words, an apple is better for you than a bowl of rice.
Also, they failed to consider the fact that fiber slows down the rate of digestion and thus allows for a smaller release of insulin. In other words, consuming whole wheat bread would be better than white bread due to the fibrous carbohydrates contained in the bread.
Fructose, on the other hand, is metabolized differently due to its structure. In the liver, fructose is metabolized and can replenish glycogen (liver only) or can form triglycerides. Due to the fact that fructose doesn't cause a substantial rise in blood sugar (it's too busy filling liver glycogen stores and creating triglycerides), it doesn't stimulate insulin secretion to any large extent.
Now, the great debate among nutritionists has been whether the low insulin response is enough to outweigh the inevitable formation of some triglycerides. In my opinion, the best answer is that it all depends on how much fructose you ingest. With a very high daily consumption of fructose (from lots of fruit, but even from the more lipogenic high fructose corn syrup and from sucrose, which is in fact, a glucose and a fructose joined together), the lipogenic effects should probably be considered.
However, a moderate daily intake of fructose, especially from fruits, is encouraged. Just be sure not to consume fructose around exercise time. It has been shown time and time again to cause GI distress, increase ratings of exertion, and cause higher serum cortisol levels when consumed in conjunction with exercise. Fructose is found naturally in many fruits, berries and honey (foods that I highly encourage consumption of) as well as some dietary supplements, but in Western society most people get fructose from processed foods containing high fructose corn syrup.
Originally posted by: ric1287
well i am trying to drop some massive lb's, and cut any form of pop out of my drinking habits. I drink alot of water, but also alot of Dole 100% juice. So i am wondering if it is 'bad' for my diet to be having that much sugar (albeit from fruit).
Anyone know?