Healthy Eating

keep going

Been around the same weight for 20 years but I put on a stone over the winter and lose it away at this time of year.the problem with weight is all down to exercise and people are doing feck all.I have a kind of jeckle and hyde psychosis with food id -id eat grand healthy dinners and lunches and then get a notion to clear a packet of biscuits or crisps or whatever.btw I'm supposed to be obese according to the bmi but that just the way im built

Sj.co

Hi all
I joined slimming world the other night and sorta know what I'm doing!! Can anyone tell me about bread. What bread am I allowed apart from whole meal?? Did I hear something at group about a bread called "nimble" or something. Much appreciated.
Sj

biddy2013

Sj.co wrote: »

Hi all
I joined slimming world the other night and sorta know what I'm doing!! Can anyone tell me about bread. What bread am I allowed apart from whole meal?? Did I hear something at group about a bread called "nimble" or something. Much appreciated.
Sj

there is a slimming world thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056398510

biddy2013

http://brne.ws/gbq

bbam

Small amounts of bread are just fine for nearly everyone, preferably whole meal. Providing your careful with the toppings and don't eat too many slices.

It's very hard long term to live without bread and your diet should be sustainable long term rather than any fad type thing.

I ha a friend complaining that bread was making him fat. He was eating 12-14 slices a day ! And having brea three times a day. He tried stopping it but that didn't work.
Now he just wats bread once a day and no more than two slices, managed to loose weight fine.

Similar to no carb diets. It's unsustainable so even if you loose weight short term it will go back on as nobody can live a normal life without eating carbs in some form. Far better to get yourself eating a moderate ammount of carbs and a balanced diet and increase exercise to loose weight. It will be much more sustainable and better for you in the long run as it prevents weight yo yoing which is very bad for you.

reilig

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Sugar doesn't cause diabetes type two in and of itself. The pathogenesis of diabetes is characterised by an abundance of free fatty acids circulating in the blood causing tissues to lose insulin sensitivity resulting in eventual beta cell burnout and insulin insufficiency.

In the majority of cases this is as a result of obesity.

I've yet to see any evidence that eating too much fruit contributes to obesity more than any other food. In fact there is significant evidence that fruit is so filling that it is hard to eat so much that you can gain weight.

Sugar has a major impact on blood sugar levels which have a lot of control over what and when we eat. eating a lot of sugar, even in fruit, is a major cause of overeating which causes weight gain and ultimately diabetes.

Like everything else, it's best to eat fruit in moderation. Vegetables are better for you. They contain enough vitamins and minerals and fill you up without major impact on your blood sugar levels.

reilig

bbam wrote: »

Small amounts of bread are just fine for nearly everyone, preferably whole meal. Providing your careful with the toppings and don't eat too many slices.

It's very hard long term to live without bread and your diet should be sustainable long term rather than any fad type thing.

I ha a friend complaining that bread was making him fat. He was eating 12-14 slices a day ! And having brea three times a day. He tried stopping it but that didn't work.
Now he just wats bread once a day and no more than two slices, managed to loose weight fine.

Similar to no carb diets. It's unsustainable so even if you loose weight short term it will go back on as nobody can live a normal life without eating carbs in some form. Far better to get yourself eating a moderate ammount of carbs and a balanced diet and increase exercise to loose weight. It will be much more sustainable and better for you in the long run as it prevents weight yo yoing which is very bad for you.

I rarely eat bread because I have an intolerance to grains. I have learned to live without it because I have had to. However, I most certainly agree with you that eating properly is about balance. We can't live without Carbs. I get essential carbs through veg like sweet potato, sweet corn, butternut squash, as well as bananas, beans, lentils, yogurt etc. When I was trying to lose weight, I found that if i timed my intake of carbs properly, it assisted with weight loss. Having porridge in the morning meant that my body had the whole day to burn off the. Eating carbs 2 hours before or up to 1 hour after exercise also worked well for me.

whisky_galore

We used eat rakes of sh!te food in the 80's, calvita cheese that looked and tasted like rubber, sweets with fcuk loads of sugar and colourants since banned by the EU, soda stream fizzy drinks, Mr Freezes and do know what there were very few kids waddling around the place putting on condition cos we didn't sit on our h0les playing computer games and on the interweb. We went swimming in the river, making rafts, climbing trees, doing the bollix down the fields, tramping over bogs, cycled if you had a bike and walked if you didn't; now kids have to have all the playtimes 'organised' for them by adults and bussed from venue to venue. Fcuking 'playdates'.

bbam

reilig wrote: »

Sugar has a major impact on blood sugar levels which have a lot of control over what and when we eat. eating a lot of sugar, even in fruit, is a major cause of overeating which causes weight gain and ultimately diabetes.

Like everything else, it's best to eat fruit in moderation. Vegetables are better for you. They contain enough vitamins and minerals and fill you up without major impact on your blood sugar levels.

Eating fruit does not cause diabetes nor cause you to become overweight.. This just isn't true.. It's so far from the truth its just crazy talk.

Your body needs some sugar and fruit is a perfect source, your body is designed to deal with sugar, particularly natural sugars rather than highly refined sugars.

runawaybishop

whisky_galore wrote: »

We used eat rakes of sh!te food in the 80's, calvita cheese that looked and tasted like rubber, sweets with fcuk loads of sugar and colourants since banned by the EU, soda stream fizzy drinks, Mr Freezes and do know what there were very few kids waddling around the place putting on condition cos we didn't sit on our h0les playing computer games and on the interweb. We went swimming in the river, making rafts, climbing trees, doing the bollix down the fields, tramping over bogs; now kids have to have all the playtimes 'organised' for them by adults and bussed from venue to venue. Fcuking 'playdates'.

Its not a lack of exercise, most kids still get plenty. Parents are feeding their kids too much and feeding them sh1te food. It would take an average adult about 3 miles of jogging to burn off a snickers. You can't out-exercise a bad diet.

whisky_galore

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its not a lack of exercise, most kids still get plenty. Parents are feeding their kids too much and feeding them sh1te food. It would take an average adult about 3 miles of jogging to burn off a snickers. You can't out-exercise a bad diet.

Do they? They can hardly run in the school playground now for fear of falling and cutting themselves. Public playgrounds are vanishing in case someone injures themselves and sues. Agree that some parents are pretty clueless about how to feed their offspring though, instead of bacon and cabbage, fire out a frozen pizza. Notice a lot of parents buying convenience food and gallons of Coke at the supermarkets, a lot of 'kid pleasing' I suspect, if we didn't eat what was on the plate you'd go hungry and you'd eat it the next time.

EDIT oh nearly forgot, we were fit when we had to stack turf...pike hay/silage...stack bales...and the most hated job of all PICKING STONES.

reilig

bbam wrote: »

Eating fruit does not cause diabetes nor cause you to become overweight.. This just isn't true.. It's so far from the truth its just crazy talk.

Your body needs some sugar and fruit is a perfect source, your body is designed to deal with sugar, particularly natural sugars rather than highly refined sugars.

But you are only picking part of what I said.
In a post earlier, you posted that you counted that your family ate more than 100 pieces of fruit per week. I said that this was excessive and could lead to diabetes in the future. 100 pieces of fruit per week is not a balanced diet for a family.

I totally agree that your body needs some sugar and that fruit is the perfect source, and that your body is designed to deal with sugar, particularly natural sugar - but not 10 portions per person per day!

5 portions of fruit and veg per person per day, not 5 portions of fruit. Average 5 portions of fruit and veg per day over a week is what is recommended. If you eat 10 portions of fruit then your body has to work overtime to deal with the sugar from it - natural sugar or not!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/16/fruit-consumption-diabetes.aspx

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724144423.htm

runawaybishop

whisky_galore wrote: »

Do they? They can hardly run in the school playground now for fear of falling and cutting themselves. Public playgrounds are vanishing in case someone injures themselves and sues. Agree that some parents are pretty clueless about how to feed their offspring though, instead of bacon and cabbage, fire out a frozen pizza. Notice a lot of parents buying convenience food and gallons of Coke at the supermarkets.

Kids still run plenty in schools and playgrounds are packed whenever the weather is halfway decent. You hit on the real reason though, a pizza instead of a decent homecooked meal, bottles of coke etc.

runawaybishop

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Sorry don't follow? You can disagree but it doesn't really mean anything until you provide evidence to the contrary.

A review of the work by other scientists.

Here is why i think its a poor study:

The sample group is very small, only just over 100 people finished the study. This is not statistically significant.
The diets were not controlled, people were given meal plans and left to their own devices.
The group was made up of all obese people.
The group was mainly women so it had a very strong sex bias.
The study was only 6 weeks long.
Both groups lost weight, which indicates that both groups ate at a calorie deficient.

bbam

reilig wrote: »

But you are only picking part of what I said.
In a post earlier, you posted that you counted that your family ate more than 100 pieces of fruit per week. I said that this was excessive and could lead to diabetes in the future. 100 pieces of fruit per week is not a balanced diet for a family.

I totally agree that your body needs some sugar and that fruit is the perfect source, and that your body is designed to deal with sugar, particularly natural sugar - but not 10 portions per person per day!

5 portions of fruit and veg per person per day, not 5 portions of fruit. Average 5 portions of fruit and veg per day over a week is what is recommended. If you eat 10 portions of fruit then your body has to work overtime to deal with the sugar from it - natural sugar or not!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/16/fruit-consumption-diabetes.aspx

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724144423.htm

Its only an average of 3.5 pieces of fruit each a day... hardly excessive.
Yes fruit consumprion is something to be aware of when you have diabetes, but it does not cause diabetes and it does not make you fat.

Its foolish to beleive people should be restricting their fruit intake for fear of diabetes or gaining weight from it..

Plenty of fruit & veg included in anyone's diet is only a good thing and is to be encouraged.

reilig

bbam wrote: »

Plenty of fruit & veg included in anyone's diet is only a good thing and is to be encouraged.

Eating within the recommended daily allowance of fruit and veg is not restricting intake.
It's more important to encourage people to balance intake than to encourage people to go gung ho eating as much fruit and veg as they can.

El_Dangeroso

runawaybishop wrote: »

A review of the work by other scientists.

Here is why i think its a poor study:

The sample group is very small, only just over 100 people finished the study. This is not statistically significant.
The diets were not controlled, people were given meal plans and left to their own devices.
The group was made up of all obese people.
The group was mainly women so it had a very strong sex bias.
The study was only 6 weeks long.
Both groups lost weight, which indicates that both groups ate at a calorie deficient.

The paper was of course peer-reviewed, it was published in Metabolism, a peer reviewed scientific journal. Do you know what statistically significant means? P = .0016??

bbam

reilig wrote: »

Eating within the recommended daily allowance of fruit and veg is not restricting intake.
It's more important to encourage people to balance intake than to encourage people to go gung ho eating as much fruit and veg as they can.

HSE Health Promotion Website
https://www.healthpromotion.ie/hp-files/docs/HPM00796.pdf

If you look for the part on Fruit and Veg intake the recommendation is 5 or more portions, this isnt an allowance its a minimum ammount.

"Choose ANY 5 or more servings each day - more is better."

Diabetes Federation Of Ireland Website
http://www.diabetes.ie/living-with-diabetes/educational-articles/diabetes-and-food/whats-so-great-about-fruit-and-veg/

I had a brief flick though the diabetes Ireland website and supprise supprise there is no health warning on Fruit consumption causing diabetes. They indeed encourage the consumption of Fruits and Veg as helping weight loss rather than warning of it making people fat.

"The other benefit of the high fibre content is that these foods are also quite slowly digested which keeps people satisfied for longer and therefore less likely to snack on higher calorie foods which can help to maintain a healthy weight or promote weight loss in someone trying to lose weight"

Lots of Fruit and veg has repeatedly been proven to be beneficial to the general population, yes there are people with conditions and diseases who need to understand how their general food consumption affects them, but for the general population its healthy, more is better, the fresher it is the better !!
This is the general consus of health professionals world wide !

runawaybishop

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The paper was of course peer-reviewed, it was published in Metabolism, a peer reviewed scientific journal. Do you know what statistically significant means? P = .0016??

And what did the peer review state? 100 people is not a decent sample size, would you go away out of it The European study on cancer rates consists of 400k people.

Also, why do you yourself feel a study done on 100 obese people for 6 weeks is a strong study?

biddy2013

runawaybishop wrote: »

Kids still run plenty in schools and playgrounds are packed whenever the weather is halfway decent. You hit on the real reason though, a pizza instead of a decent homecooked meal, bottles of coke etc.

no running allowed in our school yard:mad:

runawaybishop

biddy2013 wrote: »

no running allowed in our school yard:mad:

That is frankly insane. Do they counter that with decent PE?

hugo29

biddy2013 wrote: »

no running allowed in our school yard:mad:

ur fcuking kidding, is it a young offenders establishment run by steve staunton, who would stop kids running in school and why

El_Dangeroso

runawaybishop wrote: »

And what did the peer review state? 100 people is not a decent sample size, would you go away out of it The European study on cancer rates consists of 400k people.

Also, why do you yourself feel a study done on 100 obese people for 6 weeks is a strong study?

When you start a study you perform a statistical calculation called a sample size estimation. You factor in a number of things including what outcome you would deem clinically as opposed to statistically significant. This calculation determines the amount of people you need in the study to determine whether your result would be simply due to chance or statistical significance. Significance is usually set as p<0.05 which means you can be 95% confident your result is not due to chance. In this case because p=0.0016 we can be almost 99.9% sure.

The cancer study you mention is an epidemiological study, and is observational. Observational studies need many more patients to reach significance.

Interventional lifestyle studies such as the one I cited typically have 1-200 patients in them.

It's a good study because it isolates one variable while keeping others the same. It's randomised to remove investigator bias. And it achieved a highly significant result. Really it's a very good study of its type.

hugo29

mods maybe we could have a seperate thread on the ins and outs of a study and statistical calculations

biddy2013

hugo29 wrote: »

ur fcuking kidding, is it a young offenders establishment run by steve staunton, who would stop kids running in school and why

school yard is cramped, kids can run into each other around corners, waiting a decision on permission for an extension.

hugo29

biddy2013 wrote: »

school yard is cramped, kids can run into each other around corners, waiting a decision on permission for an extension.

jayus, thats like something from craggy island, maybe get a few traffic lights:D

whisky_galore

runawaybishop wrote: »

That is frankly insane. Do they counter that with decent PE?

There you go. No running for you, runawaybishop.

biddy2013

runawaybishop wrote: »

That is frankly insane. Do they counter that with decent PE?

youngest lad is in senior infants, small break 11.00-11.10, then at big break 12.30 they go outside first for 10-15 minutes then back into class for the last 15 minutes to eat their lunch. Each class has a specific area of the playground alloted to them. When his class go in at 12.45 junior infants come out and play in the area that the senior infants where in. There is a small football pitch but the older classes use that. It cannot be used in this weather , so the area is even more cramped:mad:

bbam

biddy2013 wrote: »

no running allowed in our school yard:mad:

I just can't understand this...
So the schools have their insurance in place.. Speaking for our local schools parents are encouraged to then take out seperate insurance which covers kids 24*7*365, its not expensive (maybe €12 a year) and from our last school report 99% of families were doing it.
What are the school afraid of ?? surely the damage being done daily to all the childrens health far outweighs any "incidents" that might happen..

We'll never have a healthy population while these draconian practices exist in schools !!

runawaybishop

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

When you start a study you perform a statistical calculation called a sample size estimation. You factor in a number of things including what outcome you would deem clinically as opposed to statistically significant. This calculation determines the amount of people you need in the study to determine whether your result would be simply due to chance or statistical significance. Significance is usually set as p<0.05 which means you can be 95% confident your result is not due to chance. In this case because p=0.0016 we can be almost 99.9% sure.

The cancer study you mention is an epidemiological study, and is observational. Observational studies need many more patients to reach significance.

Interventional lifestyle studies such as the one I cited typically have 1-200 patients in them.

It's a good study because it isolates one variable while keeping others the same. It's randomised to remove investigator bias. And it achieved a highly significant result. Really it's a very good study of its type.

How the hell is a study conducted on obese woman with no control over diet considered good?

biddy2013

bbam wrote: »

I just can't understand this...
So the schools have their insurance in place.. Speaking for our local schools parents are encouraged to then take out seperate insurance which covers kids 24*7*365, its not expensive (maybe €12 a year) and from our last school report 99% of families were doing it.
What are the school afraid of ?? surely the damage being done daily to all the childrens health far outweighs any "incidents" that might happen..

We'll never have a healthy population while these draconian practices exist in schools !!

You have never met the principle, even i am afraid of her:D no there where a few accidents, kids running in to each other,broken teeth, banged heads.... yes we have school insurance and the way the school yard is there would not be enough supervision available to watch all areas at all times if kids where legging it around.

hugo29

bbam wrote: »

I just can't understand this...
So the schools have their insurance in place.. Speaking for our local schools parents are encouraged to then take out seperate insurance which covers kids 24*7*365, its not expensive (maybe €12 a year) and from our last school report 99% of families were doing it.
What are the school afraid of ?? surely the damage being done daily to all the childrens health far outweighs any "incidents" that might happen..

We'll never have a healthy population while these draconian practices exist in schools !!

its health and safety gone mad

bbam

biddy2013 wrote: »

You have never met the principle, even i am afraid of her:D no there where a few accidents, kids running in to each other,broken teeth, banged heads.... yes we have school insurance and the way the school yard is there would not be enough supervision available to watch all areas at all times if kids where legging it around.

There will always be bumps and scrapes.. theyre kids..
Our school have the juniors and seniors divided from the older kids, that works well.. I hear of the odd incident where kids get knocked over, our own lass got a good fall one day, but to think of stopping them running about is just absurd !!

That principal is making her own life easier, but at the potential expense of all the kids health !!

reilig

bbam wrote: »

This is the general consus of health professionals world wide !

It was.

But as I said earlier in the thread, new research is being released which says otherwise. You have to remember that the general consensus of health professionals world wide up to 2 or 3 years ago was that more than 1 egg per day was bad for us, that diet and low fat branded food was better for our health than full fat, that butter was bad for us and oil based processed spreads like flora were good for our health.

Ask your wife - how does she feel about eggs, butter and full fat food?

I'm sure that she will tell you that in the modern training that she does for her career, she has learned that many of the things that she was educated that were bad for us 20 years ago when she was in college have now turned out to be really good for us.

Also ask her how she feels about a high fruit diet as opposed to a balanced diet with adequate amounts of fruit and veg, nuts, eggs, lean meat, full fat dairy etc. Diabetes or not, no dietician will claim that a high fruit diet is better for you than a balanced diet!

biddy2013

runawaybishop wrote: »

That is frankly insane. Do they counter that with decent PE?

youngest lad just has pe on a friday. Had an issue with a teacher a few years ago kids never ever ever did pe, i lost the rag, what was the point in buying the pe tracksuit, kids need to get out for pe especially if they are not allowed to run at breaktime

tabby aspreme

biddy2013 wrote: »

no running allowed in our school yard:mad:

The kids in our local school have to run laps for the last five minutes of the big break, with no exceptions, the Principle want everyone to be able to run 2k, and has great support from the parents

bbam

reilig wrote: »

It was.

But as I said earlier in the thread, new research is being released which says otherwise. You have to remember that the general consensus of health professionals world wide up to 2 or 3 years ago was that more than 1 egg per day was bad for us, that diet and low fat branded food was better for our health than full fat, that butter was bad for us and oil based processed spreads like flora were good for our health.

Ask your wife - how does she feel about eggs, butter and full fat food?

I'm sure that she will tell you that in the modern training that she does for her career, she has learned that many of the things that she was educated that were bad for us 20 years ago when she was in college have now turned out to be really good for us.

Also ask her how she feels about a high fruit diet as opposed to a balanced diet with adequate amounts of fruit and veg, nuts, eggs, lean meat, full fat dairy etc. Diabetes or not, no dietician will claim that a high fruit diet is better for you than a balanced diet!

I showed her the thread and she was amazed, she doesn't swear often but it was colourful

She would be fully comitted to people getting in as much varied fruit and veg as is possible every day.

reilig

bbam wrote: »

I showed her the thread and she was amazed, she doesn't swear often but it was colourful

She would be fully comitted to people getting in as much varied fruit and veg as is possible every day.

She swore at me saying that a balanced diet was better than a high fruit diet????

I have seen people on high fruit diets lose teeth because of the fructose rotting them!

Another reason to balance the amount that you give to your children!

eeeee

biddy2013 wrote: »

no running allowed in our school yard:mad:

That is the most insane thing I have event heard. Ridiculous. Sure scabby knees and bruises are a permanent feature of childhood :pac:

The laps idea at the end of the lunch from tabby aspreme's school might be a good here?

hugo29

gadetra wrote: »

That is the most insane thing I have event heard. Ridiculous. Sure scabby knees and bruises are a permanent feature of childhood :pac:

The laps idea at the end of the lunch from tabby spreme's school might be a good here?

you forgot the "a" we wont ask

hugo29

tabby aspreme wrote: »

The kids in our local school have to run laps for the last five minutes of the big break, with no exceptions, the Principle want everyone to be able to run 2k, and has great support from the parents

great idea, must raise it at the next parents association

ford2600

reilig wrote: »

She swore at me saying that a balanced diet was better than a high fruit diet????

I have seen people on high fruit diets lose teeth because of the fructose rotting them!

Another reason to balance the amount that you give to your children!

@reilig I posted an article in cycling forum in "energy gels" thread on bio chemistry of fructose. On mobile so can't repost it.

Ad someone who had wild blackberries last night, one should consider sugar content of modern farmed selected fruit vis a vis wild

bbam

reilig wrote: »

She swore at me saying that a balanced diet was better than a high fruit diet????

I have seen people on high fruit diets lose teeth because of the fructose rotting them!

Another reason to balance the amount that you give to your children!

She's be much too nice to swear at you Rellig !!
No she was horrified at the idea of recommending the general population to "restrict" to two portions of fruit daily.

Obviously a balanced diet is important but in general there is no need to restrict fruit intake.. As long as its as part of a balanced intake overall there is no need to restrict fruit intake.. 3, 4 or 5 portions of fruit a day are healthy as part of a balanced diet.. Obviously people with underlying conditions must balance everythiong they eat.

There is a small point to be made regarding fruit sugars/acid and teeth.. But the majority of cavities are caused by rubbish foods (sweeets and fizzy minerals) and poor oral hygene. If one was to be given the choice I'd suffer the risk of a few cavities for the benifets of eating fresh fruit and veg bring. I think if you look at professional dental information they don't say not to eat fruit, they recommend proper oral hygene to prevent damage to your teeth.

eeeee

hugo29 wrote: »

you forgot the "a" we wont ask

Sorted. And

El_Dangeroso

runawaybishop wrote: »

How the hell is a study conducted on obese woman with no control over diet considered good?

There was control over diet, I give up, read the study.

ford2600 wrote: »

@reilig I posted an article in cycling forum in "energy gels" thread on bio chemistry of fructose. On mobile so can't repost it.

Ad someone who had wild blackberries last night, one should consider sugar content of modern farmed selected fruit vis a vis wild

Ever had a wild strawberry? Wild fruit is just as sweet as farmed.

Can't understand the disparagement of fruit on this thread at all. People get fat eating processed food, not fruit.

runawaybishop

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

There was control over diet, I give up, read the study.

There was no control, not in reality. Asking obese people to follow a diet plan is not sufficient control.

ford2600

Ever had a wild strawberry? Wild fruit is just as sweet as farmed.

Can't understand the disparagement of fruit on this thread at all. People get fat eating processed food, not fruit.[/QUOTE]

Yes I've 10kgs of wild fruit still left in freezer from autumn.

My wife purchased blackberries yesterday for pancakes, they are enormous compared to the wild ones I consumed. Fruit size and sweetness along with our access to it has changed dramatically in last 100 years. It was typically only available during summer/autumn.

Fruit is selected to be sweet & large among other criteria.

I'm not against fruit, but if someone is following the food pyramid and eating 5+ portions of fruit on top of unlimited grains/carbohydates it will play a role spiking insulin.

I eat a high fat diet and deliberately eat unlimited fruit after very long cycles(up to 15hrs) to spike insulin and aid recovery. I avoid it early in day as it throws my body out of fat burning and makes me hungry.


Some light reading on the bio chemistry, I've quoted a small section

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=307

There are two other things about fructose that make it different from glucose. One is that all the fructose you eat is cleared on its first pass through the liver. In other words, the liver scarfs up all the fructose and immediately converts it to fat, while glucose stays in the bloodstream for some period of time. That’s why we call starches hyperglycemic molecules; they keep glucose levels in your bloodstream high for a long time. That is good for the brain - the brain loves to eat glucose. It’s good for the muscle. But fructose doesn’t actually supply any energy to your brain at all, it doesn’t supply any energy to your muscle; it only gets stored as fat. That’s really quite remarkable, if you think about it. You eat sucrose - one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose - that glucose is being used by your muscle and your brain - your brain loves getting that glucose - but the fructose is all just getting stored as fat.

runawaybishop

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Can't understand the disparagement of fruit on this thread at all. People get fat eating processed food, not fruit.

People get fat by eating too much.

bbam

runawaybishop wrote: »

People get fat by eating too much.

People become overweight by eating more calories than they expend.

Sam Kade

bbam wrote: »

People become overweight by eating more calories than they expend.

Like my neighbour who has pounded the road for years and still can't shift the excess weight, she likes a mountain of food on her dinner plate and also likes sugary treats