Why are the messages about sugar - and carbohydrates generally - so contradictory and confusing? Let's take a step back and understand the simple chemistry of "sugars" before we unpack this conundrum.
There are only three basic dietary sugars (ie sugars in what we eat) - they are single molecules (we call them "monosacharides") namely Glucose, Fructose and Galactose.
1) Glucose: The only one we can burn for energy. Our "blood sugar" is glucose.
2) Fructose: Also called "fruit sugar" (because it comes mostly from fruit). We cannot burn it, so our liver first has to convert it to glucose.
3) Galactose: Less common, it is found in milk, and like Fructose has to be converted to Glucose before being burned.
All other "sugars" - and there are several - consist of a number of any of these three monosaccharides linked together, eg "Sucrose" (or table sugar) is made of one Glucose and one Fructose. Similarly "Lactose" (milk sugar) is made of one glucose and one galactose linked.
Longer chains, ie with more than two molecules linked, are "polysaccharides", sometimes called "complex carbohydrates". Mammals - like us - package spare glucose (blood sugar) in long chains and store them in our muscles to burn later, in the form of Glycogen. Plants also store their spare sugar (glucose) in long chains; these chains are called "starches".
Everyone pretty much accepts now that "sugar" is bad for us, and we should cut down as much as possible, but most people are referring to "table sugar" - those white Sucrose crytals we are all so familiar with, that consist of Glucose and Fructose joined. Nobody argues against that anymore. Excess sugar makes us fat, insulin reistant and diabetic, leading to fatty liver disease, heart disease, inflammatory conditions and even Alzheimers.
But we are still encouraged to eat a lot of starches ("complex carbohydrates") by including a high amount of starchy food in our diet (grains, rice, potatoes, pasta, bread, etc) as they are "good for us". So if starches are "good for us", and starches are 100% glucose, then why is table sugar bad? It can't be the glucose then... so it muct be the Fructose component, right? But hang on... fructose is also called "fruit sugar", and we are encouraged to eat a lot of fruit - daily - as it is full of "natural" sugars! Well, like what? Fructose?
If all this advice was correct - that starches (glucose) and fruit (fructose) are both good for us and should form a significant part of our daily food intake - then surely table sugar would be healthy?? But we know it is not!
There is no "RDA" or recommended Daily Minumum amount for sugar. There are no "Essential sugars". No single sugar has any nutritioinal value whatsoever, other then to burn for energy - but it damages our metabolism over time, leading to insulin resistance, and consequently obesity, T2diabetes and heart disease. Luckily for us we do not need any sugar, as our bodies are perfectly adapted to burning fat. If we reduce sugar in our diet and replace it with fat, we have plenty of anergy and are able to maintain a healthy weight and avoid a host of inflammatory diseases that cannot be cured by any medication.
Find Out about Becoming a SHAPEFIXER Channel Member for Special Content and Additional Support:
[ Ссылка ]
Question the "Food Groups": [ Ссылка ]
The Truth about Insulin Resistance: [ Ссылка ]
The Horrors of Type2 Diabetes: [ Ссылка ]
*ANDREW TUNSTALL* is a Nutritionist, Elite Athlete and Science Teacher, who avoided Heart Surgery and a Hip Replacement by changing his lifestyle and nutrition before starting SHAPEFIXER to help others harness the power of knowledge to lose weight, improve health, fight disease and slow ageing.
*DISCLAIMER: Andrew is not a medical doctor. All videos are for informational and motivational purposes only, and are not to be taken as personalised medical diagnoses or advice. Speak to your own, trusted medical professional about all decisions you take regarding any aspects of your health, medical conditions and ongoing medication. Andrew may at any time and at his sole discretion change or replace the information available on this channel. To the extent permitted by law, Andrew Tunstall shall not be liable for any direct, incidental, consequential, indirect or punitive damages arising out of access to or use of any content available on this channel, regardless of the accuracy or completeness of any such content*
