Advice please

[Tatyana]

Thanks very much for the information, really appreciated!!

Say I get hungry during the day, do you recommend any foods that would fill me up for a while that carries very little fat in it.

Rice cakes!!!!

 

[Lifterforlife]

Fruit is not the devil! Geez, it is over consumption by folks that lead to problems. I posted "good" fruits to use when dieting. I will repost....

Fruit with an excellent Thermogenic/Carbohydrate Ratio include: Apples, Blueberries, Grapefruit, Peaches, Strawberries vs. Inferior Thermogenic Effect Fruits: Bananas, Dried Fruit, Raisins, etc., Watermelon

 

[Mr.X]

Well, I can match you in that department bro. It is HFCS that gives fructose the bad rap.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), for those that might not know the abbreviation, was only used to guide scientists to the greater problem of overall fructose intake. If you do a search on my posts you'll find all threads about fructose and it's inefficiencies. Fructose intake, not just HFCS, is one of the main reasons for childhood obesity. Recent studies found parents baffled when their child was gaining weight at a strange pace. After examining the child's diet, it was found he was consuming 100gr of fructose per day from fruits on top of his diet. A very interesting case, since many, if not all, parents push fruits on kids at an unstoppable level.

You'll be interested to know that just 1 medium Granny Smith apple, has 25gr of fructose. Go with a large and that can go up to 40-50gr.

Yes, fructose is stored as liver glycogen, but I believe on first pass only 10% at best is stored. And, so what is the problem with smart fruit intake and topping off liver glycogen? Are you aware the need for liver glycogen, and what it does?

Smart fruit intake is actually quite that, smart. Since fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars. Fructose is not the devil it is made out to be.

Liver glycogen is a catch-22, if the liver is full, the glucose / fructose /sucralose intake you have will go straight to your fat-stores. However, the liver does need some glycogen stores to properly convert T4->T3 and replenish leptin levels. This delicate balance is not reached by stuffing your liver with fructose, overloading it and creating a perfect environment for fat-gains.

Fructose intake tends to trick the person into thinking he/she is hungrier then they should be at the moment. Many studies on animals have revealed fructose's role in a biochemical chain reaction that triggers weight gain and other features of metabolic syndrome - the main precursor to type 2 diabetes. These same scientists prevented rats and mice from gaining bodyfat by interrupting the way their bodies processed fructose, even when the animals continued to consume it.

***************************************
....Richard J. Johnson, M.D., the J. Robert Cade professor of nephrology and chief of nephrology, hypertension and transplantation at UF's College of Medicine. "And although genetic predispositions are obviously important, there's some major environmental force driving this process. Our data suggest certain foods and, in particular, fructose, may actually speed the process for a person to become obese." ....
***************************************

Research has also shown fructose induces the rise of uric acid in the blood stream after consumption. Temporary spikes in uric acid block the action of insulin, 'which regulates how body cells use and store sugar and other food nutrients for energy'. When uric acid levels are elevated it can create a metabolic problem and develop: high blood pressure, obesity and elevated blood cholesterol levels.

***************************************
"When we blocked or lowered uric acid, we were able to largely prevent or reverse features of the metabolic syndrome," Johnson said. "We were able to significantly reduce weight gain, we were able to significantly reduce the rise in the triglycerides in the blood, the insulin resistance was less and the blood pressure fell."
***************************************

Ref: December issue of Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology
American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology

The exposure of the liver to such large quantities of fructose leads to rapid stimulation of lipogenesis and TG accumulation, which in turn contributes to reduced insulin sensitivity and hepatic insulin resistance/glucose intolerance.

Need I say more? thank you for putting the seal on my point.
for those that do not follow:
lipogenesis = the formation of fat; the transformation of nonfat food materials into body fat.

Overall, if the reader properly reviews my previous post, I clearly stated:

However, Fruits can be eaten in light moderation on a regular day-to-day diet, but for a diet designed to lose bodyfat fruits should not be on the list.

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5738792&postcount=9

It seems a lot of territorial 'fights' happen on the diet board without the regard to what people are saying. Please review what I said again.

I'm not going to make a claim that fruit is horrible and will kill you; however, for a person who has a primary goal to shed bodyfat, fruit/fructose are not an ideal product to have in your diet.

*******************************************

....Some nutritionists believe fructose is a safer form of sugar than sucrose, particularly for people with diabetes mellitus, because it does not adversely affect blood-glucose regulation, at least in the short-term. However, fructose has potentially harmful effects on other aspects of metabolism. In particular, fructose is a potent reducing sugar that promotes the formation of toxic advanced glycation end-products, which appear to play a role in the aging process; in the pathogenesis of the vascular, renal, and ocular complications of diabetes; and in the development of atherosclerosis. Fructose has also been implicated as the main cause of symptoms in some patients with chronic diarrhea or other functional bowel disturbances. In addition, excessive fructose consumption may be responsible in part for the increasing prevalence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Altern Med Rev. 2005 Dec;10(4):294-306.
*******************************************

 

[Lifterforlife]

Again, fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars.

Fruits should indeed be avoided when calories are at a pemium, thus every calorie meaningful toward muscle preservation. Then I say also, no fruit. But the context of this must be understood.

A successful diet consists of eating less overall calories. Bottom line. Until of course as mentioned contest dieting becomes a player.

I have dieted for 12 contests, and used my fruit list posted above up until the last couple weeks when you cut everything. I used 1/4 c blueberries in the morning and 1 c. strawberries throughout the day. Those fruits I listed have excellent thremogenic to carbohydrate ratios, which seems to be getting overlooked here.

I figured you would choose that one line...

Read this....

Macronutrient disposal during controlled overfeeding with glucose, fructose, sucrose, or fat in lean and obese women.

McDevitt RM, Poppitt SD, Murgatroyd PR, Prentice AM.

Medical Research Council Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
1. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: Previous short-term studies (< or =6 h) showed differences in energy expenditure (EE) and macronutrient oxidation in response to overfeeding with different types of dietary carbohydrate. This finding could have implications for obesity. OBJECTIVE: We used 96-h continuous whole-body calorimetry in 8 lean and 5 obese women to assess metabolic disposal (energy dissipation and glycogen or fat storage) of a controlled excess of dietary energy supplied as different carbohydrate sources or as fat. DESIGN: Five dietary treatments were applied in random order: energy balance (control) and overfeeding by 50% of energy requirements with fat (O(fat)) or predominantly with glucose, fructose, or sucrose (O(cho)). Macronutrient oxidation rates were assessed from nonprotein gaseous exchanges. Net macronutrient balances were calculated as cumulative differences between intake and oxidation. RESULTS: Increased EE in response to overfeeding dissipated 7.9% of the energy excess with a variation in EE of <1.7% across overfeeding treatments (NS). EE during the O(fat) treatment significantly exceeded that during the control treatment in the lean but not in the obese women. There were no significant differences between lean and obese women in macronutrient oxidation or balances, so data were pooled. O(cho) induced glycogen storage on day 1 ( approximately 100 g) but thereafter progressively stimulated carbohydrate oxidation so that balance was reached on days 3 and 4. Fat oxidation was proportionately suppressed. Of the excess carbohydrate, 74% was oxidized; there were no significant differences between the various O(cho) treatments. O(fat) stimulated fat oxidation by 18% and suppressed carbohydrate oxidation. On average, 12% of the excess energy was stored as glycogen and 88% as fat; there was no significant difference between overfeeding treatments. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.

 

[Mr.X]

Again, fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars.

You going to present studies to back this up? sounds like you read nothing of what I've posted.

CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.

so how does your study prove your claims? sounds like you didn't read the conclusion of the study.


You claim:

Again, fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars.

but you post studies to the contrary:

CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.

 

[Lifterforlife]

And from Havell, the excerpt....

As discussed in detail earlier, fructose consumption, along with the intake of added sugars and total energy intake, has increased significantly over the past two to three decades.

Can we again say increased caloric intake? Eat more, gain weight!

The main sources of dietary fructose are HFCS and sucrose. The lower cost of HFCS may have contributed to an increase in its use by permitting an increase in portion size of sweetened beverages without a proportionate increase in price, resulting in an increase in the total amount of fructose and the total number of calories consumed.

Read again, total amount of calories consumed...bottom line.


A major issue with dietary fructose is that the endocrine profile elicited— decreased insulin secretion, a reduced diurnal leptin amplitude, and attenuated suppression of ghrelin22—appears more similar to that of dietary fat than that of glucose-containing carbohydrates. This endocrine profile, when extrapolated to the larger population, may have facilitated an increase of total caloric intake and thereby contributed to population-based weight gain.

Read again, total caloric intake. Bottom line, eat less, lose weight. Eat more, gain weight! Everyone is looking for something to blame. How about accountability? If you overeat, you will gain, plain and simple. Fruit is not the cause of anyone overeating.

 

[Lifterforlife]

Originally Posted by Lifterforlife
The exposure of the liver to such large quantities of fructose leads to rapid stimulation of lipogenesis and TG accumulation, which in turn contributes to reduced insulin sensitivity and hepatic insulin resistance/glucose intolerance.

And then you stated this....Need I say more? thank you for putting the seal on my point. or those that do not follow:
lipogenesis = the formation of fat; the transformation of nonfat food materials into body fa


And you picked out that line to make your case.....I would think it wise to re read it. It clearly states LARGE QUANTITIES! Again, welcome to the real world...overeat, gain weight!

 

[Mr.X]

As discussed in detail earlier, fructose consumption, along with the intake of added sugars and total energy intake, has increased significantly over the past two to three decades.

ok, yeah fructose is not good for you, like I was saying.

The main sources of dietary fructose are HFCS and sucrose. The lower cost of HFCS may have contributed to an increase in its use by permitting an increase in portion size of sweetened beverages without a proportionate increase in price, resulting in an increase in the total amount of fructose and the total number of calories consumed.

The cheap cost of fructose is exactly the reason it's being widely used. I wonder what this have to do with your claims about fructose?

Again, fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars.

Read again, total caloric intake. Bottom line, eat less, lose weight. Eat more, gain weight! Everyone is looking for something to blame. How about accountability? If you overeat, you will gain, plain and simple. Fruit is not the cause of anyone overeating.

so again how does that prove any of your claims? sounds like you got a logical fallacy going here. You failed to read my post in regards to fructose, but you keep on posting unrelated, unscientific information in regards to something not being discussed - such as caloric intake. We are discussing fructose intake, not caloric intake. Furthermore, no one is making claims on validity of caloric deficits; however, you seem to stray in that direction instead of posting hard scientific facts to back up your claims - as I did.

 

[Mr.X]

Read again, total caloric intake. Bottom line, eat less, lose weight. Eat more, gain weight! .

While we are on the topic. Your statement is very broad. For example:
A)I ate less-
I had 1500calories in table sugar per day

B)I ate more-
I had 2000calories of lean meat, EFAs and complex-carbs

which one would provide for more bodyfat loss? B of course.

There is also a spin of words here by you, as no one on this diet forum wants to "lose weight", they want to lose FAT. Losing bodyfat is not simple by any means, and it is not just based on calories in VS. calories out, as that can vary greatly - all depending on type of nutrient intake. Just look at my table sugar example.

 

[Lifterforlife]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifterforlife

As discussed in detail earlier, fructose consumption, along with the intake of added sugars and total energy intake, has increased significantly over the past two to three decades.

ok, yeah fructose is not good for you, like I was saying.

Read again what you are quoting...total intake has increased...thus leading to weight gain.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifterforlife

The main sources of dietary fructose are HFCS and sucrose. The lower cost of HFCS may have contributed to an increase in its use by permitting an increase in portion size of sweetened beverages without a proportionate increase in price, resulting in an increase in the total amount of fructose and the total number of calories consumed.

The cheap cost of fructose is exactly the reason it's being widely used. I wonder what this have to do with your claims about fructose?

Because with the addition of this, overconsumption has occurred drastically, and all linked to fructose. It was a point. Read...

Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.

Bray GA, Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. [email protected]

Obesity is a major epidemic, but its causes are still unclear. In this article, we investigate the relation between the intake of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the development of obesity. We analyzed food consumption patterns by using US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables from 1967 to 2000. The consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group. HFCS now represents > 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Our most conservative estimate of the consumption of HFCS indicates a daily average of 132 kcal for all Americans aged > or = 2 y, and the top 20% of consumers of caloric sweeteners ingest 316 kcal from HFCS/d. The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity. The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifterforlife
Again, fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifterforlife


Read again, total caloric intake. Bottom line, eat less, lose weight. Eat more, gain weight! Everyone is looking for something to blame. How about accountability? If you overeat, you will gain, plain and simple. Fruit is not the cause of anyone overeating.

so again how does that prove any of your claims? sounds like you got a logical fallacy going here. You failed to read my post in regards to fructose, but you keep on posting unrelated, unscientific information in regards to something not being discussed - such as caloric intake. We are discussing fructose intake, not caloric intake. Furthermore, no one is making claims on validity of caloric deficits; however, you seem to stray in that direction instead of posting hard scientific facts to back up your claims - as I did.

There is no fallacy here. This is indeed what it is all about. Overconsumption. The majority of studies if you read them state just that, overconsumption. What I stated is indeed real world! What I am posting is exactly what we are discussing. Isn't caloric intake the bottom line of what we are discussing? This in the end is the result, and real world is the key. Studies are just that, studies. In the end, real world is what does matter. The bottom line, is our calorie intake. There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot eat fruits smartly, even on a diet.


__________________