The fiber will impact the absorption rate and insulin spike, but in the end you’ll have consumed the same amount of sugar. For calorie-counting purposes, or say, avoiding gout due to fructose intake, there will be no difference.
Why wouldn't the absorption rate have an impact? Seems like it could slow down absorption enough for your kidneys to filter out byproducts that can lead to gout. Interested to learn if you know something different.
The most common and pervasive misconceptions about nutrition use the extremely simplistic view of it, believing that in the end all matters is that you end up with N grams of say sugar.
The effects on the body of consuming an apple versus the equivalent two table spoons of raw sugar are not even remotely similar.
The problem is that there’s no study demonstrating what was stated. Consuming a fructose concentrate will not have the same outcome as consuming the same amount of fructose through fruits.
There isn’t a study that shows the outcomes are equivalent . I have no idea where OP got his conclusion that fruits are an issue.
Yes, keeping an eye on glycemic index or FODMAP for people with metabolic disease works but I can’t find studies showing that you can eat so much fruit to get diabetic or gout.
> Studies also have shown that high-fiber foods may have other heart-health benefits, such as reducing blood pressure and inflammation.
Helps control blood sugar levels. In people with diabetes, fiber — particularly soluble fiber — can slow the absorption of sugar and help improve blood sugar levels.
