I have a small competition with some people to find out which sugar has a higher caloric value, and anything on the web is an allowable resource. So, I figured I'd ask somewhere there are a few in the medical and biochemical field for some hints/help. I want to be able to prove it, so if you have an idea, you can give me a link as a source, though a book name (if I can find it in the library) would be sufficient.
Anyone have an idea? I'm thinking Fructose has a lower value, but I'm not sure (and can't prove it)... yet. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
They are the same. All carbohydrates are 4 calories per gram. You might be thinking of the glycemic load/impact, which is substantially lower for fructose than glucose or sucrose. But even though the speed of insulin reaction is not as fast, I think they will both result in more triglycerides spilling into the bloodstream.
[ February 19, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Pooka, you may be right. Any sources I could look at (to figure it out)?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
[ February 19, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
If your competition involves figuring out what kind of sugar is healthier to eat from a weight loss perspective, you might want to take this into account. Apparently fructose has a negative impact on the burning of your fat calories during exercise.
[ February 19, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't really dig the glycemic index approach because I don't think that it alone is a good overall indicator of the healthfulness of a food. Especially when it comes to fructose vs. the dreaded carrot. The glycemic index penalizes foods for being low in fat and high in fiber. While I'm not a fat counter, I think fiber is really important.
Fiber speeds the digestion of food and fat slows it down. Also, glycemic index is based on the mass of digestible carb, not serving size. So they are comparing 2 slices of bread to a quart of cooked carrots when they say carrots are no better.
Also, potatoes and bananas are unusually high glycemic index because they are rich in potassium (this is my theory anyway) which is a very beneficial nutrient (end theory) which controls sodium and high blood pressure.
[ February 19, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
what exactly is the calorie count on a food product a measure of? I just realized that i don't really have any idea.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's a measure of the chemical energy a food contains. Specifically, it's actually calculated (generally) by burning the food and measuring the amount of heat produced.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
It's interesting that the number of calories a serving of food has is not really indicative of its energy value inside the human body. They actually burn it in a little calorimeter, from what I understand, to determine what value to assign, and certain things, like cellulose, aren't able to be digested by the human body, though they still burn.
So I think the calories of, say, non-starchy vegetable, are really overstated in comparison to other carbs. You could eat 12 or 15 cups of broccoli (were that possible) (minus any butter or cheese sauce or cooking fat, of course) and still not equal the energy equivalent of a single potato, I'm guessing, though their calorie counts might be similar.
[ February 19, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, ak, I believe extracting the cellulose IS one of the steps before the pulverized food is burned. Yum! Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
okay, thats what I though, but I decided that since that wasn't really a measure of energy the food gives me it had to be wrong.
Now we just need to switch from such horrid units for it (kcal) and we'll all be happy. Joules are oh so much better.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, after they remove certain things (which, as I said, I'm fairly certain is part of the process), it's a pretty good indication of the amount of energy your body can be expected to extract from it.
Of course, the ACTUAL amount of energy will vary -- depending on how well you chewed the food, what else you ate, how efficient your system is, etc.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
according to a debate my partner and I had to fight against at the last tournament we went to, glucose is very very very bad for your body, so don't get any if you can avoud it
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Your body RUNS on glucose!
However, I might believe that purified glucose is contra-indicated for many people.
Posted by knightswhosayni! (Member # 4096) on :
if I remember correctly, your body uses carbohydrates(glucose, fructose, starches, ect.) for energy first, then fats, then protiens. So if you get an over abundance of carbs, they get stored as fat for later use.
i figure everything's a balance, and the trick is finding it with your body.
most of my family is on a low- carb diet right now. i never feel like i'm getting enough to eat, and end up feeling tired if i don't supplement thier meals with a slice of bread or two. My parents can feel fine without having to add any carbs.
Ni!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
rivka, it would sure be smart of them to do that, so maybe you're right that they do. I had thought that would be too expensive for them to undertake. Nevertheless, I think they still overestimate the energy delivered to your body by non-starchy vegetables, based on my body's very sensitive reaction to carbs. I can eat any amount of NSVs, a huge skilletful, for instance, probably five or six cups after cooking, and it causes less carb response for me than half a slice of bread. It's not just about glycemic index, either, because the rate of weight loss for me on a zero carb diet and a diet with unlimited NSVs is, as close as I can determine, identical.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
All I know is that sucrose and glucose get me high, and fructose doesn't, unless it's in a pure form.
Sucrose and glucose in the form of desserts or candies get me high dangerously quick, and then I crash terribly low after.
Fructose, in the form of fruit or juice, isn't nearly as nasty.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
John, as far as the body is concerned, they're both the same. Glycolysis is the process of "burning" glucose to yield ATP and glucose is the traditional starting point (and also the main energy source for much of the body). However, hexokinase (the initator of glycolysis everywhere but the liver) can happily use fructose to yield just as much energy as glucose would. Fructose is, in fact, the primary energy source in adipose tissue. In the liver where glucokinase reigns supreme fructose enters glycolysis by the action of fructokinase, fructose-1-phosphate aldolase and triose kinase. It yields the same number of ATP molecules as glucose does. 'Course, I don't know if this answers your question at all.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your body RUNS on glucose!