Body weight, metabolism and exercise have to be big variables.
The scary part is how much sugar sneaks into your daily diet without noticing - I kept count of the sugar grams per day for a workday and I had about 98 gms of sugar & that's where it got labelled (unlike a tomato sauce pasta).
Anyway, all it taught me is that even if exercised like a madman, I won't lose the "moved to US" weight gain without minor diet changes - but what surprised me was that my diet was a good one in the meals, it is just the middle-of-meals grabbing of things that pushed that number up (like a yogurt).
> How many dates would be enough to damage my liver?
I was told that there's two ways to drink twelve glasses of alcohol a month - one's to hit six for two weekends and the other is to drink a glass on Fri, Sat and Sun.
And then said "it's like three pats on the back a week or two punches a month".
Bodies heal and repair damage - and at a varying rate as you age.
Separately, on the sugar science website they say:
> our scientific team recommends keeping all added sugars below the recommended limits of 6 teaspoons/day (25g) for women and 9 teaspoons (38g) for men.
Where is the scientific evidence supporting this?
These glasses have been replaced by much larger ones. These days a 'small' juice is 12-16 oz, or 150-200 calories, which is just as bad as pop.
Portion sizes are growing with the collective waistline of America.
But your instinct is right that fructose that's bound up in real fruit isn't typically the problem. It's unbound fructose like you find in agave nectar or HFCS.
Once one sucrose is metabolized by sucrase it hits the bloodstream as glucose and fructose no different than HFSC.
Doesn't only matter in the end how much fructose you consume regardless of whether enters your body bound as sucrose or not as HFCS?
Can you point to some more information are the differences?
One may need to be somewhat more moderate with dates as they contain little fiber to sugar content - hinting at the importance of varying your fruit diet.
[1] https://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-abo...
It would seem if you bound HFSC up with fiber it would have the same effect.
Sucrose is glucose and fructose with a chemical bond between. HFCS is a slurry; there's no chemical bond connecting the two.
"Broken down in the small intestine very rapidly into 50/50..." ignores the fact that it takes a while to make it down as far as the small intestine.
I can't speak more to the differences personally because I'm not the one with the PhD and I'm not going to interrupt my wife from grading papers just to correct some rando on the Internet. :)
I am still not seeing the difference?
edit
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "unbound" I thought you where referring to the chemical bond in sucrose, vs being bound up physically with fiber in fruit.
Two things, people just don't eat that much fruit, usually. And whole fruits/vegetables when eaten release glucose and fructose slowly as the digestive enzymes slowly break it down. I think the idea is not to force your body to deal with a big slug of glucose and fructose all at once.
Fruit has loads of fiber, although less than what our ancestors gathered, and in less quantity. Fiber is what produces satiety. For the same reason fruit juice is not good for you.
I wanted to know because it is probably really hard to reach without processing the sugar. IIRC dates are most fructose dense food we can find in nature. How many dates would be enough to damage my liver?
It would probably be hard to hurt your liver with alsohol as well, if you limit yourself to unprocessed alcohol (i.e.: by eating off fruits).