Fructose, Dairy and SUgar substitutes.....

[Mr.X]

Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005 Feb 21;2(1):5.

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia.

Basciano H, Federico L, Adeli K.

Clinical Biochemistry Division, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [email protected].

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are occurring at epidemic rates in the United States and many parts of the world. The "obesity epidemic" appears to have emerged largely from changes in our diet and reduced physical activity. An important but not well-appreciated dietary change has been the substantial increase in the amount of dietary fructose consumption from high intake of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup, a common sweetener used in the food industry. A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism. These metabolic disturbances appear to underlie the induction of insulin resistance commonly observed with high fructose feeding in both humans and animal models. Fructose-induced insulin resistant states are commonly characterized by a profound metabolic dyslipidemia, which appears to result from hepatic and intestinal overproduction of atherogenic lipoprotein particles. Thus, emerging evidence from recent epidemiological and biochemical studies clearly suggests that the high dietary intake of fructose has rapidly become an important causative factor in the development of the metabolic syndrome. There is an urgent need for increased public awareness of the risks associated with high fructose consumption and greater efforts should be made to curb the supplementation of packaged foods with high fructose additives. The present review will discuss the trends in fructose consumption, the metabolic consequences of increased fructose intake, and the molecular mechanisms leading to fructose-induced lipogenesis, insulin resistance and metabolic dyslipidemia.

 

[Mr.X]

Horm Metab Res. 2005 Jan;37(1):32-5.

Effects of dietary fructose on liver steatosis in overfed mule ducks.

Davail S, Rideau N, Bernadet MD, Andre JM, Guy G, Hoo-Paris R.

Laboratoire de Biologie et Nutrition Appliquee, IUT des Pays de l'Adour, Mont de Marsan, 371 rue du Ruisseau BP 201, 40004 Mont de Marsan Cedex, France.

Overfeeding of some waterfowl species results in obesity, which is mainly characterized by a dramatic hepatic steatosis induced by strong accumulation of lipids synthesized from dietary glucose in the liver. In mammals, fructose is known to be able to raise plasma triacylglycerol concentrations significantly; consequently, this may induce obesity. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of partial replacement of dietary glucose provided by corn starch with fructose on metabolism and fatty liver production in the Mule ducks. On the basis of 9.5 kg maize (132,920 kJ) given twice a day for 14 days, a supplementation of 9,800 kJ was provided in form of glucose, sucrose or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS: 50 % glucose, 42 % fructose and 8 % other saccharides). Fatty liver weight in ducks fed with glucose supplementation was 499 +/- 21 g. Sucrose or HFCS supplementation brought about a significant increase in liver weight (+ 18.7 % and + 16.3 % vs. glucose supplementation respectively, p < 0.05). These results suggest that the dietary fructose favors the liver steatosis by increasing hepatic lipogenesis. Postprandial plasma insulin concentrations were similar in ducks fed diets with or without fructose, suggesting that the effect of fructose on liver steatosis is not mediated by insulin.

 

[Joe Stenson]

if you think there is no difference between eating oats and brown sugar then I have nothing to say to you - I don't think this is worth the conversation if you can't understand with common sense the difference
also, I meant to say table sugar

Table sugar is 50/50 sucrose/fructose, so you can make the argument that the hypothetical guy may end up ingesting too much fructose. Aside from that, try to explain the difference to me between eating table sugar vs. oats, given adequate protein and EFA intake.

Here's 2 quotes from Lyle McDonald. I happen to like his work and feel that if you want to talk about what an "optimal" diet looks like, then you definitely need to consider his work in the field:

This quote explains why a piece of fruit here and there is not a bad thing:

"So it's not about rationalizing anything, it's about the realities of long-term changes for people. Expecting perfection is almost always a recipe for failure. Allowing people a little bit of the 'bad' stuff (and note that I do not like putting foods into good and bad categories, this puts a moral spin on it that messes with people badly; a healthy food can be terribly bad in excess and a 'unhealthy' food can be fine in moderation) often helps them make the other changes in the long-term."

This quote is one he has made over and over again, and really challenges the whole "eating clean to maximize results" philosophy:

"I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
ripped on table sugar.

Appetite will be the determining factor.
Because 80% of the variance in what you lose (bodyfat vs. muscle) is NOT
determined by diet, it's determined by your body. Once you meet certain
requirements (protein, EFA, calories, weight training), the rest of your
diet means nothing outside of it's ability to meete appetite and
psychological needs (and exercise prformance)"

IMO, appetite control is something largely overlooked on most cutting diets. The actual physical effects of eating table sugar vs. eating oats are negligible at best. It's the fact that one allows for greater feelings of satiety (as well as more stable energy levels), thus making sure calories stay low, that makes the difference.

 

[gjohnson5]

Table sugar is 50/50 sucrose/fructose, so you can make the argument that the hypothetical guy may end up ingesting too much fructose. Aside from that, try to explain the difference to me between eating table sugar vs. oats, given adequate protein and EFA intake.

Here's 2 quotes from Lyle McDonald. I happen to like his work and feel that if you want to talk about what an "optimal" diet looks like, then you definitely need to consider his work in the field:

This quote explains why a piece of fruit here and there is not a bad thing:

"So it's not about rationalizing anything, it's about the realities of long-term changes for people. Expecting perfection is almost always a recipe for failure. Allowing people a little bit of the 'bad' stuff (and note that I do not like putting foods into good and bad categories, this puts a moral spin on it that messes with people badly; a healthy food can be terribly bad in excess and a 'unhealthy' food can be fine in moderation) often helps them make the other changes in the long-term."

This quote is one he has made over and over again, and really challenges the whole "eating clean to maximize results" philosophy:

"I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
ripped on table sugar.

Appetite will be the determining factor.
Because 80% of the variance in what you lose (bodyfat vs. muscle) is NOT
determined by diet, it's determined by your body. Once you meet certain
requirements (protein, EFA, calories, weight training), the rest of your
diet means nothing outside of it's ability to meete appetite and
psychological needs (and exercise prformance)"

IMO, appetite control is something largely overlooked on most cutting diets. The actual physical effects of eating table sugar vs. eating oats are negligible at best. It's the fact that one allows for greater feelings of satiety (as well as more stable energy levels), thus making sure calories stay low, that makes the difference.

"Because 80% of the variance in what you lose (bodyfat vs. muscle) is NOT
determined by diet, it's determined by your body."

I think MR X is through with this thread so I will chime in and he can come with his own comments if he so chooses.

This is the exact reason why I avoid fructose entirely. I feel that person A
225lb 10%
300g protein = 1200 calories
50g efa = 450 calories
if the person metabolism is slow such as mine I feel that the conversion of fructose to fat will be even greater due to the fact that the necessary caloric intake and above macronutrients are already met. The human body can convert proteins into glucose and the liver can and does take fatty acids and use them for energy. Add fructose which has a high probability of being converted to fat even without the presence of other carbs. So I feel they would become MORE fat not stay even keel.

The whole purpose of oats , yams and fibrous green vegetables is to have a low GI SLOW digesting carbohydrate that is broken down into GLUCOSE.

 

[Mr.X]

Table sugar is 50/50 sucrose/fructose, so you can make the argument that the hypothetical guy may end up ingesting too much fructose. Aside from that, try to explain the difference to me between eating table sugar vs. oats, given adequate protein and EFA intake.

Here's 2 quotes from Lyle McDonald. I happen to like his work and feel that if you want to talk about what an "optimal" diet looks like, then you definitely need to consider his work in the field:

This quote explains why a piece of fruit here and there is not a bad thing:

"So it's not about rationalizing anything, it's about the realities of long-term changes for people. Expecting perfection is almost always a recipe for failure. Allowing people a little bit of the 'bad' stuff (and note that I do not like putting foods into good and bad categories, this puts a moral spin on it that messes with people badly; a healthy food can be terribly bad in excess and a 'unhealthy' food can be fine in moderation) often helps them make the other changes in the long-term."

This quote is one he has made over and over again, and really challenges the whole "eating clean to maximize results" philosophy:

"I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
ripped on table sugar.

Appetite will be the determining factor.
Because 80% of the variance in what you lose (bodyfat vs. muscle) is NOT
determined by diet, it's determined by your body. Once you meet certain
requirements (protein, EFA, calories, weight training), the rest of your
diet means nothing outside of it's ability to meete appetite and
psychological needs (and exercise prformance)"

IMO, appetite control is something largely overlooked on most cutting diets. The actual physical effects of eating table sugar vs. eating oats are negligible at best. It's the fact that one allows for greater feelings of satiety (as well as more stable energy levels), thus making sure calories stay low, that makes the difference.

Actually, I don't respect a word out of Lyle's mouth, he's a "so called" guru, but when I looked at him that's all I needed to know. The man is a failure and listening to him or reading his trash is useles. He copied a majority of his book from Dan Duchaine quotes and didn't give Dan any credit - it's pathetic. The man has nothing but copyright infringement written on his head. A good friend of mine still has emails from Dan to Lyle, same email text you can find in Lyle's book lol, straight copy and paste job.

I don't know why I waste my time on this but I will explain to you the difference.

Glycemic Index: GI rank for Oatmeal is 48-52 (depending on guide) + extra fiber for slower digestion, GI rank for sugar is 78 (80) and that's because of the fructose in it - sucrose is 83.

Mr.X

 

[Joe Stenson]

if the person metabolism is slow such as mine I feel that the conversion of fructose to fat will be even greater due to the fact that the necessary caloric intake and above macronutrients are already met. The human body can convert proteins into glucose and the liver can and does take fatty acids and use them for energy. Add fructose which has a high probability of being converted to fat even without the presence of other carbs. So I feel they would become MORE fat not stay even keel.

Good response. I really can't disagree with that. And thanks for keeping it toned down.

The whole purpose of oats , yams and fibrous green vegetables is to have a low GI SLOW digesting carbohydrate that is broken down into GLUCOSE.

...to provide a more stable source of energy (like I said).

However, something that is overlooked is the satiety effects of these foods. There's a big difference between 50g of oats vs. 50g of dextrose in terms of hunger.

Actually, I don't respect a word out of Lyle's mouth, he's a "so called" guru, but when I looked at him that's all I needed to know.

LMFAO...WOW, just WOW.

It's funny this exact topic came up on another board the other day, and we were just all TEARING into a guy who said something similar to you. To think that possessing knowledge of something and actually having the desire to use that knowledge are one and the same is probably the biggest fallacy you can think of. I guess you can take the advice of anyone with a good physique then eh?

Madcow actually talked about this in the training section the other day when he said he'd never take bodybuilding advice from a pro. And really, you can't "look the part" more than a pro does.

Honestly, disagree with me all you want, but seriously come up with a better reason for not liking a guy. I actually respect the advice you give 99% of the time, so this is really just shocking to hear from you. It's something a 17-year old kid would use in his argument.

I don't know why I waste my time on this but I will explain to you the difference.

Glycemic Index: GI rank for Oatmeal is 48-52 (depending on guide) + extra fiber for slower digestion, GI rank for sugar is 78 (80) and that's because of the fructose in it - sucrose is 83.

Another "shocking" piece of information. Oats are lower GI than table sugar? No way.

Presenting information from a glycemic index table isn't defending an argument. Why does GI matter? People haven't cared about the GI of foods much since a "revolutionary" discovery was made a few years ago: that people eat MEALS, not single foods in isolation. And when you throw some protein and/or fat in with the table sugar the GI drops significantly, making it virtually moot.

I guess you're one of the guys who also says you HAVE to have high GI carbs post-workout. Cuz I mean, it's not like glycogen stores can be replensished with low GI carbs or anything .

 

[gjohnson5]

However, something that is overlooked is the satiety effects of these foods. There's a big difference between 50g of oats vs. 50g of dextrose in terms of hunger.

It is overlooked because YOU are overlooking it. As you stated in your example the person has already swallowed ample amounts of proteins and fats, how do you think his appetite will be??? Take a tablespoon of flax which has about 14g of fats and 10g of efa's in it and see what happens to your appetite.

You really shouldn't swallow flax by itself becuase it's mostly polyunsaturated fats, so you should get some monounsaturated fats such as olive oil which has known good health effects and will be another 14g of fats and 10g efa.

Then snak on some peanuts or cashews or macadamia and then fry something in vegetable oil and you'll be surprised what happens to your calorie intake and your appetite.

 

[Mr.X]

...to provide a more stable source of energy (like I said).

However, something that is overlooked is the satiety effects of these foods. There's a big difference between 50g of oats vs. 50g of dextrose in terms of hunger.

sounds like you are not even understanding the point you're pushing, saying sugar is a stable source of carbohydrates when compared to oats really makes you look like a arrogant person here


LMFAO...WOW, just WOW.

It's funny this exact topic came up on another board the other day, and we were just all TEARING into a guy who said something similar to you. To think that possessing knowledge of something and actually having the desire to use that knowledge are one and the same is probably the biggest fallacy you can think of. I guess you can take the advice of anyone with a good physique then eh?

go ahead tear into me...Lyle is a moron, was a moron and will always be a moron, why don't you quote that? no problem. Lyle is a liar and a thief. He wrote his whole book based on copyrighted material he just copied and pasted. Bro, get a life and get off your knees , Lyle needs to rest

Madcow actually talked about this in the training section the other day when he said he'd never take bodybuilding advice from a pro. And really, you can't "look the part" more than a pro does.

mad who? what the hell are you talking about bro? you're off topic here. I don't have all the time in the world to discuss idiotic issues

Honestly, disagree with me all you want, but seriously come up with a better reason for not liking a guy. I actually respect the advice you give 99% of the time, so this is really just shocking to hear from you. It's something a 17-year old kid would use in his argument.

hey, it sounds like you have a reading problem, did you read everything I provided? obiviously not. Read the scientific evidence behind my words. Your argument is false and unfounded. Stick to the point, you are the one making an argument equivalent to a 10 year old. 'NO NO YOU'RE WRONG' type of saying. Just admit you're wrong, which you are. It's obvious you have no real understanding of bodybuilding or you wouldn't advocate fructose intake or think that oatmeal is just as good as table sugar!



Another "shocking" piece of information. Oats are lower GI than table sugar? No way.
LOL, look buddy just because you claim you know everything it doesn't mean you do, you're an ignorant person and I understand that but your claims are completely idiotic

Presenting information from a glycemic index table isn't defending an argument. Why does GI matter? People haven't cared about the GI of foods much since a "revolutionary" discovery was made a few years ago: that people eat MEALS, not single foods in isolation. And when you throw some protein and/or fat in with the table sugar the GI drops significantly, making it virtually moot.

I guess you're one of the guys who also says you HAVE to have high GI carbs post-workout. Cuz I mean, it's not like glycogen stores can be replensished with low GI carbs or anything .
yes "cuz" you really know what you're talking "bout". Ok, well how can I prove a fool that thinks he knows it all wrong? I can't, can I. Yes, you're right , you're smarter then American Diabetes Association and American Medical Association combined; I thought so the first time I read your post

I'll leave you with a great saying by Aristotle; "a man knows is still a man, a man doesn't know tis say does he is nothing but a fool."

This will be my last post here I've said everything that needs to be said.

Mr.X

 

[Joe Stenson]

It is overlooked because YOU are overlooking it. As you stated in your example the person has already swallowed ample amounts of proteins and fats, how do you think his appetite will be??? Take a tablespoon of flax which has about 14g of fats and 10g of efa's in it and see what happens to your appetite.

Man, anyway you slice it, myself (and many others) are going to be ravenously hungry eating only 2000 calories/day. My point is thus that you don't want to be "wasting" those calories on foods (like table sugar) that aren't going to fill you up at all.

I realize that fat and protein have a pretty good effect on satiety, but when overall calories are limited, you're still going to be hungry. And the difference between a diet that succeeds and one that doesn't, is being able to stay on that diet. (Basically any diet will work. It's sticking with it long enough to see the desired results that makes it a success.) If eating oats is going to keep you reasonably satiated, while eating table sugar is going to leave you wanting to cheat on pizza and ice cream, then it's the better choice. Aside from that, there isn't much difference.

 

[gjohnson5]

Why are people not talking about coconut oil a replacement for sugar
http://www.alternative-healthzine.com/html/0108_2.html