Sugar - sucrose - is split into frutose and glucose in the stomach. your whole thesis is not how digestion works. Frucose is processed in the liver, but all other claims are something I’ve never seen real science back up
Fruits tend to get listed as low GI supporting the poster’s statement.
Also, you’re simplifying the chemistry and metabolic pathways to the point they sound the same when they’re obviously different. I’m not an expert but I as I understand it table sugar is short chain and good to go, fruits (if they’re not pre cooked) tend to be a bit more complicated and have a few more steps along the way (and I assume each requires some energy to unlock and also result in some chemical energy that isn’t completely digested). Also, what you’re saying goes a lot against what I understand from the carb count on the packet from fibre vs. what your body unlocks. That said, I’m very ignorant and far from an expert
Fiber makes a big difference with fruit. it slows down absorbtion on often sugars are locked in fiber needing time.
Glucose affects the gi it is absorbed directly into the bloodstream. Futose cannot be used directly and so the liver processes it - no gi index applies.
Sucrose generally implies no fiber and so the simplification works fine. With the added constraint that only half of the molecule is glucose and influences the gi index.
that is as far as I know things so I need to stop. Even then I’ll stand corrected if an expert weighs in (though it is more likely the ‘expert’ is self proclaimed and really knows less than me so I place a high burdon of proff for correcting me despite this not being where I’m an expert)
What specifically in the original post did you have issue with? There’s not a lot too that post, and you have agreed with part of it, so it seems like it would be faster to list out the issues
Sugar - sucrose - is split into frutose and glucose in the stomach. your whole thesis is not how digestion works. Frucose is processed in the liver, but all other claims are something I’ve never seen real science back up
Fruits tend to get listed as low GI supporting the poster’s statement.
Also, you’re simplifying the chemistry and metabolic pathways to the point they sound the same when they’re obviously different. I’m not an expert but I as I understand it table sugar is short chain and good to go, fruits (if they’re not pre cooked) tend to be a bit more complicated and have a few more steps along the way (and I assume each requires some energy to unlock and also result in some chemical energy that isn’t completely digested). Also, what you’re saying goes a lot against what I understand from the carb count on the packet from fibre vs. what your body unlocks. That said, I’m very ignorant and far from an expert
Fiber makes a big difference with fruit. it slows down absorbtion on often sugars are locked in fiber needing time.
Glucose affects the gi it is absorbed directly into the bloodstream. Futose cannot be used directly and so the liver processes it - no gi index applies.
Sucrose generally implies no fiber and so the simplification works fine. With the added constraint that only half of the molecule is glucose and influences the gi index.
that is as far as I know things so I need to stop. Even then I’ll stand corrected if an expert weighs in (though it is more likely the ‘expert’ is self proclaimed and really knows less than me so I place a high burdon of proff for correcting me despite this not being where I’m an expert)
What specifically in the original post did you have issue with? There’s not a lot too that post, and you have agreed with part of it, so it seems like it would be faster to list out the issues