Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kleiba 2040 days ago
Most national dietary guidelines encourage eating fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on the vegetables. The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.
3 comments

> The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.

I think a more precise way to say this is:

Due to the water and fiber in fruit, they tend to be more satiating than eating something like a chocolate bar on a calorie normalized basis.

My understanding is that the fiber literally prevents absorption of fructose, so parent's comment is accurate
Fructose is almost always absorbed; fructose malabsorption causes SIBO. Fiber reduces the glycemic index and makes fruit more satiating. Glucose aids the absorption of fructose preventing SIBO.

But in the case of fruit w.r.t. gout, the missing variable here is that while fructose increases the production of uric acid, potassium promotes the excretion of uric acid [1], and fruits are generally an excellent source of potassium while soft drinks contain little to none. The net effect of fruit on gout risk seems to be inconclusive [2] but it's clear that fruits are much less concerning than foods with added fructose. Since a significant fraction of Westerners do not consume enough potassium [3], and potassium is key to preventing hypertension and stroke [4,5], it is bad advice to suggest reducing fruit consumption for most people, unless you're already eating like Steve Jobs.

1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381...

2: https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/58/7/...

3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02709...

4: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11906-011-019...

5: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/1...

True, but what I was actually trying to get at was that sugar is also metabolized differently in the presence of fibre.
Most national dietary guidelines are backed by weak epidemiology and are rarely corroborated by RCTs. See: the food pyramid
And are instead heavily guided by ag industry lobbyists.
You are comparing the sugars in raw food to something heavily processed. That's not a good comparison.
Sugar is sugar. HFCS is a bit worse, but in the broader context of dietary intake it will make no difference.
That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science.

Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management.

>> Sugar is sugar.

>> That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science.

I agree with you on this one but from what I've heard, it is likely that fruit juices and smoothies are not fruits either. If that is correct, the message can get very muddied.

>> Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management.

Now we need to not only treat different sugars differently, we also need to treat the delivery methods differently as well. At some point, the message just becomes too complicated.

> from what I've heard, it is likely that fruit juices and smoothies are not fruits either. If that is correct, the message can get very muddied.

Not really. The original comment in this chain talked about processed foods vs unprocessed. Fruit juices are fairly obviously processed so this rule works for them too.

It is simplistic, but for most people it is probably a great start.

When people talk about sugar like this they are talking about fructose. Bringing glucose into it confuses people since it is scientifically sugar, but not what people mean when they talk about eating sugar, which is just eating sweets, soda, juice, etc.

> When people talk about sugar like this they are talking about fructose. Bringing glucose into it confuses people

I believe people are actually usually talking about sucrose, which breaks down into equal parts fructose and glucose v early in digestion.

Fructose is the monosaccharide and is the problem. It doesn't always come from sucrose.
Do you also think processed rice products like flours, pasta are the same as whole rice cooked?
It is in the context of dieting advice “instead of a chocolate bar, eat an apple” (still about 20 grams of sugar/100 kcal, but about half that of the chocolate bar)
The other difference is that while chocolate bar makes you more active if you was low on sugar, you are still quite empty, hungry and looking for more to eat shortly after you ate that.

If you eat apples, you hit limit soon. Apples also do not work all that much if you actually need quick energy when doing something straining. It does not have that "immediately feel better" effect (which motivates you eat more and more).