In other news: The leading cause of death is dying. Scientists are baffled.
100% of marriages end in divorce or death. Stay single, stay safe.
People really have forgotten the evils of Dihydromonoxide
…did we not already know this? I could’ve sworn we already knew this.
deleted by creator
I certainly noticed a correlation many years ago.
I don’t know why y’all are arguing about fruit. I have a hunch that there’s some fructose in high fructose corn syrup, which is in just about every processed sweet tasting thing made in the USA. That’s probably contributing to obesity a bit more than peaches, ffs.
So, is this an open door to scare people away from fruit?
That sounds like a challenge to me…
@FleetingTit I’m still haunted by that scene in Se7en where the guy has “striations” in his stomach from being forced to over eat.
no one eats 20 oranges in one sitting
Unless they are looking for a serious case of the runs.
But I admit to have over indulged on this particular fruit more than once.
You know you don’t have to @ people, we can see who you’re replying to, mate :)
Cool but clearly that’s a problem with your browser or client because nobody else on kbin is doing this
@Mr_Blott yeah it quite possibly is my browser. Will check sometime. Anyway, whatever the reason, it’s helpful to me when I’m on big threads.
It’s easy to do - kbin pre-populates the comment reply button with your name so it’s not like I have to type it out. (I think this feature is here because we also interact with Mastodon, but it’s also useful over here).
The runs? No. A run to the store to buy more Tums is more likely.
When in doubt, both!
So like freshly squeezed orange juice in large quantities?
@msage even that isn’t as hard on the liver as processed orange juice that has no fibre in it. But it’s the things that have extra fructose added into them that I would be wary of.
An Australian guy did a documentary where he ate the exact same number of calories he’d eaten before, and worked out just as much, but he went for food with added fructose. It’s really interesting.
No, the study is talking about other sources of fructose:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.23920
The study is not saying that fructose is the root cause of obesity from what I see (search doesn’t work properly there). I’m not sure if in such a complex mechanism as a human body a single cause of obesity can exist. Additionally, our bodies differ and a single mutation can change the outcome of the whole process from what I know.
The title is so misleading that it borders on lying.
The root cause of all obesity everywhere is not fructose. That implies that if you don’t eat fructose or generate fructose, you will not be obese. Fructose might be contributing factor to obesity, but it is hardly a root cause or “the” root cause.
No, the title is completely correct - but you should read the article accompanying it ;) Have you tried it?
I overstepped on my comment but after years of being vehiculated as an healthy sugar, this is the kind of title capable of triggering that sort of thought.
And agreed. It may be a part of the problem but it is risky to say this or that is the root of the obesity problem.
deleted by creator
How is fruit juice unhealthy?
deleted by creator
So even 100% pure squeezed juice is bad?
Treat drinking any kind of juice - even orange juice - as if you are splurging on a dessert. That’s the best way to frame it as part of your diet
Yeh juice is just a softdrink with a good marketing team (fruit). Fruit is good though, save yourself the effort of juicing it :)
deleted by creator
I personally aim for under 10g refined sugar / day and find that works well for me. If juice is something that is important to you, a glass a couple times a week is probably fine. Drinking it with or shortly after a meal might help by slowing digestion.
I used to drink orange juice every day - it’s so good … but after stopping and starting many times, I realized how much worse I feel when I’m less disciplined about sugar. My doctor was actually suggesting I consider surgery to relieve pain in my wrists, but I’ve been largely pain free since I started watching sugar intake (~8 years).
Try fruit nectars. The entire fruit is used and water is added to dilute the puree to a more liquid state.
Just make sure there’s a bathroom available if you want to try prune nectar.
Yuck.
Peach, apricot, apple, pear…
Who was the sadist that created that?
*in America
Regardless of method, weight always boils down to a balance of calories consumed vs calories burned.
Your control of calories burned is limited - outside of physical exercise, your body does a lot of crap on its own, and finding the number of calories you passively burn on an average day is a major hurdle.
To do that, log and calculate the caloric value of everything that goes into your mouth; and your weight. If your weight is trending up, reduce your intake and keep checking. Once it stabilizes, you’ve got your number. If your baseline is weird, something’s fucking with your metabolism - see your doctor (for real, that could be a sign of some really bad shit).
From there, you can either further decrease calories consumed by eating/drinking less, or increase calories burned by cranking up the exercise, or a combo of the two. You’ll be more comfortable/satiated if you limit things like processed shit, but you can literally eat nothing but Twinkies and still lose weight if you stay within your caloric budget (you’ll also be starving all the time, pissed off, and unless you’re a fucking robot, give in and eat some actual food, breaking your caloric budget and thus your goals, so don’t actually try the Twinkie thing, but it’s ‘technically’ possible).
Any and every diet that actually works does so via a caloric deficit. Maybe fructose is the biggest enemy; maybe it’s other sugars; or fats; but keep your caloric consumption-to-burn ratio in the negative regardless of source, and you WILL lose weight.
Our bodies absolutely do not treat all calories equally
This.
It’s crazy, the science on processed fructose vs glucose is clear
but people still cling to old ideas about all calories all being the same.Don’t you people have some vitamin supplements to piss out?
you people
Which “people” would those be?
I thought literature.cafe was a normal instance but your comment sounds a bit troll-like? Have added a link to my comment to show what I mean.
People that think that link proves their point, lmao.
@DragonTypeWyvern ha ha that link was meant as an illustration not a proof. It’s not even a scientific paper, it’s Harvard Health.
I seriously doubt that fructose is the “root cause of obesity” like this article claims. But @AnaGram is right, all calories are not equal and the science has been clear for a long time when it comes to metabolic differences between how the body processes, say, fructose vs glucose.
I think there are probably a bunch of TOFI addicted to HFCS who don’t want it to be true though!
An illustration that you don’t understand what calories in equals calories out means lul
And for a very short summation of the small novella I’ve written in other comments, not every calorie has the same amount of nutrition in it.
There are non caloric nutrients in food that are absolutely vital for human health and happiness and when you are deficient in those nutrients your body will compel you to continue eating until you have met your baselines.
Solve the nutritional problem and you will most likely go a long long way towards solving the obesity problem.
They don’t, there’s a million little things that depend on what you eat, but regarding weight this is how it works.
Yeah, the key word there is “calories out” – as in, not all calories get absorbed equally well by the body, so some get excreted. “Calories out” does not just mean burning them with metabolism and exercise. “Eat less and exercise more” is a gross oversimplification.
Less efficient calorie conversion means you’d lose weight even easier . . .
Right: skinny people might have less efficient calorie conversion than fat ones.
. . . . but 99% of the time they just eat less
In terms of weight - yes, they do.
TLDR: calories in, calories out.
I’ve always personally believed in low-carb diets, but I still agree that calories in/out is the main factor for weight gain. That being said, some calories are not calculated right. I remember reading a study on Almonds that said something like 33% of the calories from Almonds are not absorbed, so “100-calorie” packs of almonds are only 66 calories. In this way, not all calories are the same because the way we calculate them isn’t right all of the time. Also, calories in/out doesn’t account for foods that are unhealthy for other reasons, or could cause you to eat more than you would otherwise, like HFCS.
Very true. I like to reduce the complexity of foods. Just getting someone to eat the correct amount of calories is more than 1/2 the battle. Getting them to eat healthier food is the next huddle.
The thing that this perspective doesn’t take into account is hunger. It’s all fine and well to say control your calorific intake, but willpower is a finite and limited resource and if it’s the mechanism used to manage calorific intake it will inevitably fail you. Especially when self-control relies on glucose levels in the blood and the aforementioned willpower is being used to reduce those glucose levels.
In the absence of fructose, fat consumption is controlled through the suppression of hunger by the CCK feedback loop. In the absence of fructose, carb consumption is controlled through the insulin/glucagon feedback loop.
Fructose just gets converted into fatty acids without any control loop, leaving you laden with excess fatty acids and still hungry.
Sucrose, which is sugar, is 50% fructose. So it’s not just Americans with their high fructose corn syrup who are being bombarded with calories that our hunger can’t see, it’s anyone eating foods sweetened with sugar.
High fructose corn syrup, by the way, is up to 55% fructose, with the rest being glucose. So it’s not thaaaat different than sucrose in overall composition. That’s not saying anything about how it’s absorbed though.
Basically our bodies are good at dealing with 50/50 G:F ratios, but HFCS is more like, 40/60 so it doesn’t know what to do with that excess F which is known to cause all sorts of health problems. This is why fruit and table sugar are fine but most processed food is not. If you know how to avoid it you can end up a lot healthier overall. And no, the meme of “the fiber of the fruit prevents absorption” that doesn’t stop it, just smooths down the sugar spike over a larger time. All of it that was diversion tactics to distract people from the real source of health problems: HFCS and overconsumption, because health science in the US is notoriously bought and paid for and they’re not about to blame capitalism.
Basically I wanted to see if it would be possible to survive off of nothing but energy so I experimented on myself and short of some minor issues (malnutrition and something I learned about called protein starvation) it caused me to be healthier and happier once I knew what I was doing.
EDIT: Have to explain protein starvation because google’s dogshit algorithm thinks you mean protein toxicity which his the literal exact opposite of what protein starvation is and because it’s so confident that’s what you want to see it won’t actually tell you: So like humans need protein and we can generate it from energy, but the rate is way too low for our bodies to function so you’re only getting like a 10th of what we need, meaning you can starve to death while having more than enough calories otherwise.
Also while I’m here I may as well also go further into what I meant by “good at dealing with G:F at a 50/50 ratio” on the cellular level we have little factories pumping energy across a barrier so that it can later spin a literal turbine and generate ATP, and they’re built out so that sugar comes in, gets broken into Glucose and Fructose and like Factorio the ratios are set to fit that. Start producing too much Fructose and now you have an imbalance and like Factorio causes things to back up a bit. This is also why I was at half energy when I did Glucose-only; I had all the energy I needed but the rate I could access it was half of what it should have been. TL;DR Our cells are designed to reverse the effects of photosynthesis, converting sugar into energy, everything else is on top of that is ultimately in service of that goal.
Takeaway: Sugar is good, potatoes and PB toast are great, HFCS are bad, and capitalism is to blame for the health problems in america.
Ya mean… High Fructose?
deleted by creator
As an old, I never heard of anyone getting pancreatic cancer when I was young.
Then all of a sudden pancreatic cancer is something that everyone gets.
Correlation is not causation, but there is correlation.
Well, part of that is also because we know more about pancreatic cancer now, enough to call it that. Just because diagnoses goes up does not necessarily mean that rate is going up.
Yeah, and the world around you and the food that is consumed and human knowledge and medicine have all changed as much as you have, probably even more.
Your take on this is ignoring all of that.
Modern fruit plants are quite high fructose compared to their ancient ancestors.
And thanks to soil depletion, also less nutritious in regards to minerals. Still great for fiber, though.
Fun fact: HFCS is identical to honey, to the point that many honey manufacturers will add some because it is cheaper and impossible to detect.
Ewwww. You’re saying I’ve been having honey coke all these years? Yuck!!!
It would be amazing if we found that just one ingredient could be traced to all the suffering from obesity.
In other news: the water is wet.
Water is not wet. It makes things wet but it’s not wet.
I really, really hope you understand that your comment is entirely useless and just spamming.
No, their comment is correct. Water is indeed wet.
If you take issue with them stating an obvious fact, perhaps instead you could take issue with the OP, which did the same thing.
