Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How much fructose is too much
- Thread starter drewmaci
- Start date
Hi Drew
Fructose, as you know, is a simple or single sugar (monosaccharide), much like glucose and galactose. Complex carbohydrates, however, are longer chains of >3 glucose molecules. Complex carbohydrate chains can contain thousands of glucose molecules ( >10 = polysaccharide). The interesting point though, is that whether it is a simple sugar like fructose, or a complex carbohydrate like a potato, they both equal roughly the same caloric content per gramme (4kcals/gCHO).
So a gramme of glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, maltose (monosaccharides and disaccharides) contains the same amount of kcals as a gramme of amylopectin, amylose, and ribose (polysaccharides).
Yet, to answer your question about Glycemic Index: How much fructose is too much? Does it not depend on the glycimec level??
This wouldn't usually matter if your fruit intake was moderate or low, but the GI of fruit in your case is more important. While, the energy content of fruit and starches are almost the same, the GI values differ remarkably. I'm not talking about the complex CHO vs. simple CHO here. I'm talking about the GI of fruits itself. Strange as it may seem, there are just as many Low GI fruits as there are High GI fruit.
Examples of Medium to High GI Fruit (60>)
Water melon
Raisins
Bananas
Grapes
Cantaloupe
Dates
Low GI Fruits (<60)
Apple
Cherries
Figs
Peaches
Plums
Unripe banana
Grapefruit
Orange
Pears
Peaches
If you really enjoy your cold natural foods, why not try munching on carrots, broccoli, peppers, celery, radish, tomatoes etc., and try to eat a little less fruit. Okay, theres' nothing wrong with four or five pieces of fruit a day providing it's not making you fat or ill, but adding in the salad items to replace some of the fruit, will mean a wider variety of nutrients and minerals and also a lower intake of sugar. This will obviously create a more stable blood sugar level and will increase your weight loss faster, safer, and more efficiently than consuming such a large amount of fruit sugar.
Hope this helps.
Craig
Fructose, as you know, is a simple or single sugar (monosaccharide), much like glucose and galactose. Complex carbohydrates, however, are longer chains of >3 glucose molecules. Complex carbohydrate chains can contain thousands of glucose molecules ( >10 = polysaccharide). The interesting point though, is that whether it is a simple sugar like fructose, or a complex carbohydrate like a potato, they both equal roughly the same caloric content per gramme (4kcals/gCHO).
So a gramme of glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, maltose (monosaccharides and disaccharides) contains the same amount of kcals as a gramme of amylopectin, amylose, and ribose (polysaccharides).
Yet, to answer your question about Glycemic Index: How much fructose is too much? Does it not depend on the glycimec level??
This wouldn't usually matter if your fruit intake was moderate or low, but the GI of fruit in your case is more important. While, the energy content of fruit and starches are almost the same, the GI values differ remarkably. I'm not talking about the complex CHO vs. simple CHO here. I'm talking about the GI of fruits itself. Strange as it may seem, there are just as many Low GI fruits as there are High GI fruit.
Examples of Medium to High GI Fruit (60>)
Water melon
Raisins
Bananas
Grapes
Cantaloupe
Dates
Low GI Fruits (<60)
Apple
Cherries
Figs
Peaches
Plums
Unripe banana
Grapefruit
Orange
Pears
Peaches
If you really enjoy your cold natural foods, why not try munching on carrots, broccoli, peppers, celery, radish, tomatoes etc., and try to eat a little less fruit. Okay, theres' nothing wrong with four or five pieces of fruit a day providing it's not making you fat or ill, but adding in the salad items to replace some of the fruit, will mean a wider variety of nutrients and minerals and also a lower intake of sugar. This will obviously create a more stable blood sugar level and will increase your weight loss faster, safer, and more efficiently than consuming such a large amount of fruit sugar.
Hope this helps.
Craig
Ch3micalGnetics
New member
Nice write Craig..... What about the body not being able to use fructose as fuel? Fructose has to be transformed to glucose by the liver in order to use it as fuel.
Can you elaborate on this?
I hope you understand me. My english is not very good...
Enviado desde mi GT-I9100 usando Tapatalk 2
Hi ch3micalgnetics.
Your English is very good. No worries there, my friend.
Fructose is a monosacharide, just as glucose is. However, you're absolutely correct that most (not all) of fructose' conversion to glucose is done in the liver.
I think that this is one the reasons why it is a popular choice of sugar (fructose) in sports drinks and other energy supplement products. Add also, that fructose is a relatively Low GI sugar and lends itself to more stable blood sugar levels over a period of time.
As you pointed out in your above post, fructose has to (largely) be converted to glucose in the liver. Glucose stored in the liver is then converted to glycogen, much the same as muscle glycogen. Another benefit of fructose being stored as glycogen in the liver, as opposed to it being stored in the muscles as glycogen, is that liver glycogen can be reconverted to glucose (blood sugar) whereas muscle glycogen cannot do this in any appreciable, significant amounts.
From what I gather, the only major downside of fructose versus glucose as an energy source, is down to the very thing that makes it popular: Its slow absorbancy rate etc. In a lot of athletes, the slow rate of absorbance in the intestines can affect osmosis during diffusion. Now, I'm no chemist, and this mechanism is well beyond my understanding, but needless-to-say, too much fructose can cause stomach cramps and give you the "Brad Pitts". That's probably why sports drinks only contain a small amount of fructose per serving.
I hope this has put a bit of meat on the bones, so to speak.
Craig
Your English is very good. No worries there, my friend.
Fructose is a monosacharide, just as glucose is. However, you're absolutely correct that most (not all) of fructose' conversion to glucose is done in the liver.
I think that this is one the reasons why it is a popular choice of sugar (fructose) in sports drinks and other energy supplement products. Add also, that fructose is a relatively Low GI sugar and lends itself to more stable blood sugar levels over a period of time.
As you pointed out in your above post, fructose has to (largely) be converted to glucose in the liver. Glucose stored in the liver is then converted to glycogen, much the same as muscle glycogen. Another benefit of fructose being stored as glycogen in the liver, as opposed to it being stored in the muscles as glycogen, is that liver glycogen can be reconverted to glucose (blood sugar) whereas muscle glycogen cannot do this in any appreciable, significant amounts.
From what I gather, the only major downside of fructose versus glucose as an energy source, is down to the very thing that makes it popular: Its slow absorbancy rate etc. In a lot of athletes, the slow rate of absorbance in the intestines can affect osmosis during diffusion. Now, I'm no chemist, and this mechanism is well beyond my understanding, but needless-to-say, too much fructose can cause stomach cramps and give you the "Brad Pitts". That's probably why sports drinks only contain a small amount of fructose per serving.
I hope this has put a bit of meat on the bones, so to speak.
Craig
