Which sweetener is best?

Taylor Brown61 said:Well, thanks for breaking all that down—you basically filled in all the gaps I left out...

and here’s a little fun fact for you too... heh, let me add my two cents 😁

fructose—since it's essentially "pure" fruit sugar—gets absorbed by the body almost instantly, so if someone starts feeling shaky because their blood sugar is crashing, grabbing something with fructose is probably the best move... sure, it might cost a bit more, but it actually works... just like grape sugar does! 👋
but anyway, getting back to those artificial sweeteners... from talking to a few doctors, I've gathered that it's best to stick with The Beatles (kill me now, I'm not even sure if I'm spelling that right)... apparently, aspartame has the lowest impact, and honestly, that's the main thing that matters!

Look, let's be real, the body absorbs all kinds of sugar just fine, whether it's glucose or fructose. There are even plants out there that produce sweet sap. Just stick to sucrose in moderation, and if you're worried about extra calories, just go work out like that person above pointed out so well. Obesity and heart disease aren't really caused by eating too many calories, they're caused by not moving enough.😉

Taylor Brown61 said:fructose—since it’s basically just "pure" fruit sugar—gets absorbed by your body almost instantly. So, if someone’s feeling crappy and their blood sugar is bottoming out, grabbing something with fructose is probably your best bet... yeah, it costs a bit more, but it does the trick... pretty much like cane sugar! 👋
but anyway, back to those artificial sweeteners... I was chatting with some doctors recently and they told me the move is to go for The Beatles (kill me now, I can't even spell it right)... apparently, aspartame has the lowest impact, and honestly, that's the main thing that matters!

No, no, no, no way

glucose spikes your sugar fast. Fructose absorbs way, way, WAY slower than that.

driftinggull13 said:Look, listen, the body absorbs all kinds of sugar just fine, whether it's glucose or fructose. I mean, there are plenty of plants out there that produce sweet juices naturally. Just don't go overboard with the sucrose, and if you end up with extra calories, just hit the gym like someone else pointed out earlier. Obesity and heart disease aren't caused by eating too many calories; they're the result of being sedentary.😉

I don't personally have any issues with my weight or calorie intake 😁 but I definitely agree with what was said above! 👋

rustymoose54 said:No, no, no, no way.

Glucose sends your blood sugar skyrocketing almost instantly. Fructose? That stuff gets absorbed way, way, WAY slower.

🙄 Oh, really?
Look, I don't know—maybe grab a textbook and double-check if you're so sure! I might be off base here, but from what I remember...

Taylor Brown61 said:🙄 oh yeah?
haha, man, I don't know—grab a textbook and check for yourself! maybe I'm tripping, but last thing I remember...

you go ahead, I don't need to look up this stuff 🙂

hypoglycemia is just low blood sugar. blood sugar is glucose. basically, glucose gets used for energy by breaking down into pyruvate (that's glycolysis for the nerds out there).

now, fructose *can* enter the glycolysis process, but it goes through the fructose-1-phosphate pathway, which needs the fructokinase enzyme. on the flip side, fructose can also jump into glycolysis by turning into fructose-6-phosphate, but that requires hexokinase. the catch? fructose's affinity for that enzyme is way lower than glucose's, so that route is pretty unlikely.

when you're crashing from hypoglycemia, you need something that hits your bloodstream fast as pure glucose. your best bet is straight glucose, then sucrose, then starch. fructose? it isn't gonna save you anytime soon.

rustymoose54 said:No, no, no, no.

Glucose spikes your blood sugar fast. Fructose is absorbed way, way, way slower.

Exactly. Glucose has a glycemic index of 100, while fructose sits well below 20—I’d pin it right around 17 somewhere.

From what I understand, the body views processed foods as low-quality fuel. It ends up pulling from its own internal reserves of "real nutrients" just to process them... basically robbing itself to make up for the junk it's digesting.

In plain English, if you eat white sugar, your system tries to balance things out by dumping vitamins and minerals into the mix to handle it. Then, when you digest it, you end up flushing those precious nutrients right down the drain along with the sugar.

Brown sugar—specifically the unrefined kind, usually noted on the label—is actually recognized as high-value food. Your body doesn't feel the need to supplement it with your own stored nutrients, so you get to keep those reserves intact.

That’s the massive difference between refined and unrefined products in general, and it applies to brown sugar too; you have to check if it's truly unrefined or just regular white sugar with some color added.

Anyway, I stick to honey, rice syrup, fructose, or raw brown sugar, depending on what I'm making. 🙂

ruggedviper982 said:From what I understand, the body views highly processed foods as essentially nutrient-void. To compensate, it pulls from its own internal reserves of "real nutrients" just to process them. Essentially, you're impoverishing your own system just to digest junk.

Does that imply that refined foods would actually make for the perfect weight-loss diet?

shadowfalcon33 said:So, what you're saying is... highly processed junk food would be the perfect diet for losing weight?

Keep dreaming, man... 😁

It really depends on what you're actually trying to achieve with a cutting diet. A proper one should be about melting away body fat, not stripping your system of essential vitamins and minerals... 😕

Not sure. This isn't my profession, just a hobby, and I've never really struggled with my weight anyway.🙂

ruggedviper982 said:It really depends on what you’re actually trying to get out of a cutting diet. A proper diet should be about melting away body fat, not stripping your system of all those essential vitamins and minerals...😕

Look, I don't know. This isn't my profession or anything, it's just a hobby I tinker with, and honestly, I've never even struggled with my weight...🙂

Yeah, well, clearly this isn't your area of expertise, which is pretty obvious from both your last two posts... If you actually want to understand what's happening, go pick up a copy of Guyton and read up on digestive physiology; it might clear things up and help you realize there's no such thing as "high-value" versus "low-value" sugars when they're basically the exact same thing. Like, brown sugar is pretty much identical to refined white sugar, and your body isn't having any easier time processing one over the other if you look at the actual composition... And I'm fairly certain minerals don't play much of a role in how sugar is absorbed anyway. You really need to study some basic physiology if you're going to talk about digestion, dieting, and nutritional density, so I'd highly recommend starting there if you want a real foundation...

driftinggull13 said:If you’re serious about getting into digestion, dieting, or nutritional values, you really need to dig into physiology first. It's the foundation for everything.

Oh please, give me a break... you are way too naive.

Everything is laid out perfectly online—just a quick Google search and boom, you're an expert. Sure, you might mix up a few technical terms here and there, but who actually cares about that? At the end of the day, the point is somewhere in there... 😁

Honestly, I remember back when I used to hang out at those fancy health seminars in New York, everyone would start rambling about diets and "foods with negative caloric value" and all those other ridiculous theories... 😬 I actually fell for it for a while, but I've since checked out. It's mostly just... 😁

It feels like these topics always turn into heated arguments because everyone’s got their own little theory. Mine comes from some books I read on macrobiotic principles. Honestly, I think every nutritionist out there has their own agenda. Is this specific sugar better than that one? This flour or that? Should we be eating meat, or is dairy okay, or is soy the way to go... In the end, it just seems like nobody actually knows anything, yet everyone acts like an expert.

I just stick to what I've picked up from certain books that happened to land in my lap, plus my gut feeling. Regardless of the physiology, my intuition tells me to grab raw cane sugar instead of the white stuff. At the end of the day, everyone just does whatever they think works best for them, right?😉

Look, honestly, if you want my advice:
1. try coffee with a bit of honey,
2. grab some cookies made with Ghirardelli chocolate,
3. or just start making your own wine using brown sugar... 😛

ruggedviper982 said:It feels like every single nutritionist out there just makes up their own little reality, right? One day it’s this specific sugar that’s the enemy, then it’s that particular flour... one guru swears by meat, the next one thinks dairy is poison, and don't even get me started on the whole soy debate.

Exactly. It's the same deal with chemists—everyone’s got their own "theory" on the relative molecular mass of a carbon atom, or what the actual chemical formula for pure aspirin is, or whether insulin counts as a hormone or an enzyme 😁 —not to mention basic stuff like pH levels, or if hitting the fructose too hard actually spikes your blood glucose and all that nonsense

Forgot to add the most important part: every amateur chemist...

rustymoose54 said:Go ahead and take it—I don't really have a use for it myself.🙂

Hypoglycemia is essentially just low blood sugar. That sugar is glucose, which the body uses for energy by converting it into pyruvate—that's during glycolysis, I believe.

Fructose can technically enter the glycolysis process, though it usually goes through the fructose-1-phosphate pathway via the fructokinase enzyme. Alternatively, it could turn into fructose-6-phosphate using hexokinase—but since fructose has a much lower affinity for that enzyme than glucose does, that path seems less likely.

When you're dealing with hypoglycemia, you need something that hits the bloodstream as glucose quickly. Glucose itself is best, followed by sucrose, then starch. Fructose probably won't help you much in a hurry.

🙏 😂 😈

rustymoose54 said:yeah, it's like how every chemist has their own little theory on the relative molecular mass of a carbon atom, what the chemical formula for pure aspirin actually is, whether insulin is a hormone or an enzyme 😁—basically, what pH even means, if eating fructose spikes your blood sugar, stuff like that...

forgot to mention: every wannabe scientist

You've mixed up two different threads here, but I'll answer you anyway.

See, when I was a kid (which wasn't actually that long ago), there was this specific children's aspirin. Pretty sure it was similar to something like Advil, just with some additives to make it "easier" on the stomach. Nowadays, neither pregnant women nor kids are supposed to take aspirin for various reasons (not that I want to start a whole new debate). Or back then, people used to give babies eggs and lemon when they were just a few months old. Now, they say don't even give them egg whites until they're 12 months. Etc., etc.

Or, taking something unrelated to kids. Microwaves were huge when they first came out, and now there are all these theories about how they're super unhealthy and that you shouldn't cook anything in them for kids under three.

That's just how I see nutritionism. I wouldn't even link it to hard sciences, though looking back, those have evolved too in certain fields. If I had to connect it to anything, it would be medicine and ways to treat diseases like cancer or Hepatitis C. Some people follow the exact same protocols and beat cancer, while others don't make it. Milk might be fine for one person but terrible for someone else...

ruggedviper982 said:You started a whole different thread here, but whatever, I’ll give you an answer anyway...

See, when I was a kid—which wasn't actually that long ago, let's be real—there used to be this specific children's aspirin. I think the formula was basically just regular aspirin but with some additive meant to make it "easier" on the stomach. Nowadays, neither pregnant women nor kids are supposed to touch aspirin for various reasons (and I really don't want to start a whole new debate about that)... Or back then, people would be giving babies eggs and lemon juice when they were barely even a few months old. Now, they recommend waiting until they're at least 12 months before even touching egg whites. Etc., etc...

Or take the microwave, for example—that's not even about kids specifically. When microwaves first hit the market, they were a total craze, and now there are all these theories floating around about how they're incredibly unhealthy, suggesting you shouldn't prepare anything in them for kids under three...

That’s just how I view nutritionism. Personally, I wouldn't even try to link it to the hard sciences—even though, looking back at history, those have "evolved" too, in certain fields... But if I *were* going to connect it to something, it would be medicine and the ways we treat specific diseases, like cancer or Hepatitis C...

So, you really have massive gaps in your knowledge if you want to lecture us on nutritionism. Advil, Aleve, and aspirin are essentially the same thing in terms of active ingredients, and the dosage is right there on the label. There might be a lower dose version for kids, obviously...
And you wouldn't link nutritionism to the hard sciences because they've "somewhat evolved"... 😲 😲 😲
Oh, please... honestly, someone should just cut off your electricity, your car, your meds, your food supply, your building materials, your clothes... just so I can see what else has "somewhat evolved"...
And what exactly is medicine built upon if not the hard sciences? Alternative medicine? Chakras and auras???????
"I wouldn't link it"??? Good grief... seriously, please, go study actual medicine—you know, physiology and digestion—and *then* come talk to me about nutritionism...
I honestly don't know how to explain to someone that brown sugar and white sugar are practically identical from a digestive standpoint. Just look at the ingredients. But hey, how is anyone supposed to be a nutritionist if they refuse to accept that theory has to align with the hard sciences? That's why most of you don't bother reading medical textbooks... because they contradict the nonsense you just pull out of thin air based on nothing but pure imagination...

😱

What a post. I'm riding coach while you're up in first class... 👋

No way,😉