Fructose - Scientific Data

Nutrition
21

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:
Good thread, and what josh says i completely agree with. Fructose being the main factorn obesity are you shitting me?

Couldnt we agree the reason everybodys fat is overconsumption of calories and lack of activity. The overconsumption of required energy coming from majority of the time - fat - which is calorie dense and therefore contributes mainly to people overindulging on food, even when they think they dont eat much. Its when they eat on couch and eat fast food or snack of lollies/chips/chocolate all of which are small but high in calories. [/quote]

I don’t agree with that. Most of the food problems in America aren’t a matter of calories, they’re a matter of food quality and timing. Reducing lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight – if the probem is the -fat-, shouldn’t obesity have done down, instead of up, as dietary fat consumption declined?

[/quote]

Horse shit.

Americans HAVEN’T reduced lipid intake. Your statement should read “telling Americans to reduce lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight.”

GO check up on the statistics, fat intake has RISEN along with sugar intake AND, shocking for you thermodynamics experts out there, total caloric intake.

“Simply a matter of food quality and timing”, eh? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]

I’ll reply to the content of this when I’ve seen some proof you can have a discussion without being an intolerable ass. Or, you can keep making stupid comments and calling anything you disagree with “horse shit”, and I can ignore you for the ignorant little shit you sound like. Your call.

22

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:
Good thread, and what josh says i completely agree with. Fructose being the main factorn obesity are you shitting me?

Couldnt we agree the reason everybodys fat is overconsumption of calories and lack of activity. The overconsumption of required energy coming from majority of the time - fat - which is calorie dense and therefore contributes mainly to people overindulging on food, even when they think they dont eat much. Its when they eat on couch and eat fast food or snack of lollies/chips/chocolate all of which are small but high in calories. [/quote]

I don’t agree with that. Most of the food problems in America aren’t a matter of calories, they’re a matter of food quality and timing. Reducing lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight – if the probem is the -fat-, shouldn’t obesity have done down, instead of up, as dietary fat consumption declined?

[/quote]

Horse shit.

Americans HAVEN’T reduced lipid intake. Your statement should read “telling Americans to reduce lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight.”

GO check up on the statistics, fat intake has RISEN along with sugar intake AND, shocking for you thermodynamics experts out there, total caloric intake.

“Simply a matter of food quality and timing”, eh? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]

I’ll reply to the content of this when I’ve seen some proof you can have a discussion without being an intolerable ass. Or, you can keep making stupid comments and calling anything you disagree with “horse shit”, and I can ignore you for the ignorant little shit you sound like. Your call.[/quote]

Ignorant little shit? Stupid comments? I’m not the one asserting that the OBESITY EPIDEMIC is a matter of NUTRIENT TIMING.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

[quote]
Total fat intake in grams increased among women by 6.5 g (p<0.01) and decreased among men by 5.3 g (p<0.01). [/quote]

23

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:
Good thread, and what josh says i completely agree with. Fructose being the main factorn obesity are you shitting me?

Couldnt we agree the reason everybodys fat is overconsumption of calories and lack of activity. The overconsumption of required energy coming from majority of the time - fat - which is calorie dense and therefore contributes mainly to people overindulging on food, even when they think they dont eat much. Its when they eat on couch and eat fast food or snack of lollies/chips/chocolate all of which are small but high in calories. [/quote]

I don’t agree with that. Most of the food problems in America aren’t a matter of calories, they’re a matter of food quality and timing. Reducing lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight – if the probem is the -fat-, shouldn’t obesity have done down, instead of up, as dietary fat consumption declined?

[/quote]

Horse shit.

Americans HAVEN’T reduced lipid intake. Your statement should read “telling Americans to reduce lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight.”

GO check up on the statistics, fat intake has RISEN along with sugar intake AND, shocking for you thermodynamics experts out there, total caloric intake.

“Simply a matter of food quality and timing”, eh? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]

I’ll reply to the content of this when I’ve seen some proof you can have a discussion without being an intolerable ass. Or, you can keep making stupid comments and calling anything you disagree with “horse shit”, and I can ignore you for the ignorant little shit you sound like. Your call.[/quote]

Ignorant little shit? Stupid comments? I’m not the one asserting that the OBESITY EPIDEMIC is a matter of NUTRIENT TIMING.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

[quote]
Total fat intake in grams increased among women by 6.5 g (p<0.01) and decreased among men by 5.3 g (p<0.01). [/quote][/quote]

Hahahahahahaha. Stronghold… hilarious.

24

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:
Good thread, and what josh says i completely agree with. Fructose being the main factorn obesity are you shitting me?

Couldnt we agree the reason everybodys fat is overconsumption of calories and lack of activity. The overconsumption of required energy coming from majority of the time - fat - which is calorie dense and therefore contributes mainly to people overindulging on food, even when they think they dont eat much. Its when they eat on couch and eat fast food or snack of lollies/chips/chocolate all of which are small but high in calories. [/quote]

I don’t agree with that. Most of the food problems in America aren’t a matter of calories, they’re a matter of food quality and timing. Reducing lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight – if the probem is the -fat-, shouldn’t obesity have done down, instead of up, as dietary fat consumption declined?

[/quote]

Horse shit.

Americans HAVEN’T reduced lipid intake. Your statement should read “telling Americans to reduce lipid intake hasn’t resulted in Americans losing weight.”

GO check up on the statistics, fat intake has RISEN along with sugar intake AND, shocking for you thermodynamics experts out there, total caloric intake.

“Simply a matter of food quality and timing”, eh? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]

I’ll reply to the content of this when I’ve seen some proof you can have a discussion without being an intolerable ass. Or, you can keep making stupid comments and calling anything you disagree with “horse shit”, and I can ignore you for the ignorant little shit you sound like. Your call.[/quote]

Ignorant little shit? Stupid comments? I’m not the one asserting that the OBESITY EPIDEMIC is a matter of NUTRIENT TIMING.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

[quote]
Total fat intake in grams increased among women by 6.5 g (p<0.01) and decreased among men by 5.3 g (p<0.01). [/quote][/quote]

Yes. “I’ve got a bridge to sell you” = Ignorant little shit.

Goodbye.

25

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Yes. “I’ve got a bridge to sell you” = Ignorant little shit.

Goodbye.[/quote]

I’m not the one making idiotic and unsubstantiated claims.

26

Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.

27

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant.

28

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant. [/quote]

Calories have increased as a result of increased sugar intake, specifically sucrose and fructose.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2963

“Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.”

Bsically, fructose makes your body think you’re still hungry even when you’re full, by not affecting leptin/ghrelin the way glucose does – resulting in people eating more calories. Cut out the sucrose/fructose, and people become satiated much faster, and, as a result, ingest fewer calories.

Or, we can suggest that they eat the same HFCS laden foods, only eat less… and then they remain hungry, weight loss plateus after a few weeks, and they give up and start eating “normal” again, and gain the weight back and then some.

29

*plateaus

30

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant. [/quote]

Calories have increased as a result of increased sugar intake, specifically sucrose and fructose.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2963

“Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.”

Bsically, fructose makes your body think you’re still hungry even when you’re full, by not affecting leptin/ghrelin the way glucose does – resulting in people eating more calories. Cut out the sucrose/fructose, and people become satiated much faster, and, as a result, ingest fewer calories.

Or, we can suggest that they eat the same HFCS laden foods, only eat less… and then they remain hungry, weight loss plateus after a few weeks, and they give up and start eating “normal” again, and gain the weight back and then some.[/quote]

Again…straining at minutia. 40-50 years ago, the average american drank 10 gallons of soda per year. Now the average american drinks 50 gallons. Portion sizes have spun out of control. The sheer volume of what we eat nowadays vs in the past is staggering. There has to be restraint and a modicum of control in these areas before we start worrying whether the sugars in our food are 5% more fructose than they were when sucrose was used as a sweetener.

Think about it… HFr is 55/45 and sucrose is 50/50. With a ‘for example’ 20g serving of sugars, that comes up to 1 extra gram of fructose. You really think THAT’S what’s making people fat?

31

Fat people aren’t fat because they eat too many pears or kiwis or bananas they’re fat becasue they eat too many snickers and drink too much pepsi.

32

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant. [/quote]

Calories have increased as a result of increased sugar intake, specifically sucrose and fructose.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2963

“Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.”

Bsically, fructose makes your body think you’re still hungry even when you’re full, by not affecting leptin/ghrelin the way glucose does – resulting in people eating more calories. Cut out the sucrose/fructose, and people become satiated much faster, and, as a result, ingest fewer calories.

Or, we can suggest that they eat the same HFCS laden foods, only eat less… and then they remain hungry, weight loss plateus after a few weeks, and they give up and start eating “normal” again, and gain the weight back and then some.[/quote]

Again…straining at minutia. 40-50 years ago, the average american drank 10 gallons of soda per year. Now the average american drinks 50 gallons. Portion sizes have spun out of control. The sheer volume of what we eat nowadays vs in the past is staggering. There has to be restraint and a modicum of control in these areas before we start worrying whether the sugars in our food are 5% more fructose than they were when sucrose was used as a sweetener.

Think about it… HFr is 55/45 and sucrose is 50/50. With a ‘for example’ 20g serving of sugars, that comes up to 1 extra gram of fructose. You really think THAT’S what’s making people fat?

[/quote]

“Portion sizes have spun out of control.”

and I explained why, above.

33

[quote]jfiorini wrote:
Fat people aren’t fat because they eat too many pears or kiwis or bananas they’re fat becasue they eat too many snickers and drink too much pepsi. [/quote]

Agreed, of course. But I was talking about the HFCS in snickers/pepsi, not the fructose in a pear or kiwi, which contain fiber and micronutrients.

34

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant. [/quote]

Calories have increased as a result of increased sugar intake, specifically sucrose and fructose.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2963

“Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.”

Bsically, fructose makes your body think you’re still hungry even when you’re full, by not affecting leptin/ghrelin the way glucose does – resulting in people eating more calories. Cut out the sucrose/fructose, and people become satiated much faster, and, as a result, ingest fewer calories.

Or, we can suggest that they eat the same HFCS laden foods, only eat less… and then they remain hungry, weight loss plateus after a few weeks, and they give up and start eating “normal” again, and gain the weight back and then some.[/quote]

From the paper:

“Furthermore, total energy intake (1816 509 kcal, HGl, vs. 1958 598 kcal, HFr), total fat
intake (37.1 13.9 g, HGl, vs. 42.2 13.5 g, HFr), and total carbohydrate intake (275.7 111 g, HGl, vs. 289.5 101 g, HFr) were not significantly different between the 2 treatment
days.”

This is not to say it’s not possible; however, in their case, they did not find a difference in food intake when individuals were eating ad libitum.

35

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant. [/quote]

Are you dense. Fat intake barely freaking increased, whereas sugar drastically increased. Calorie for calorie, sugar lead to more weight gain than fat.

36

[quote]itsthetimman wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dragns wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Fat intake very slightly increased over the past few decades. Sugar drastically increased during that time. Sugar is the cause of weight gain. That’s not open for debate, though I didn’t read the above exchange thoroughly. What the good doctor proposed, and appears quite possible, is that fructose may have more to do with weight gain that previously believed.[/quote]

Not open for debate? Are you serious? Yes, sugar intake increased. But fat intake also increased. And more important than all of that minutia is the fact that CALORIES increased. Trying to blame obesity on one thing is blatantly ignorant. [/quote]

Calories have increased as a result of increased sugar intake, specifically sucrose and fructose.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2963

“Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.”

Bsically, fructose makes your body think you’re still hungry even when you’re full, by not affecting leptin/ghrelin the way glucose does – resulting in people eating more calories. Cut out the sucrose/fructose, and people become satiated much faster, and, as a result, ingest fewer calories.

Or, we can suggest that they eat the same HFCS laden foods, only eat less… and then they remain hungry, weight loss plateus after a few weeks, and they give up and start eating “normal” again, and gain the weight back and then some.[/quote]

From the paper:

“Furthermore, total energy intake (1816 509 kcal, HGl, vs. 1958 598 kcal, HFr), total fat
intake (37.1 13.9 g, HGl, vs. 42.2 13.5 g, HFr), and total carbohydrate intake (275.7 111 g, HGl, vs. 289.5 101 g, HFr) were not significantly different between the 2 treatment
days.”

This is not to say it’s not possible; however, in their case, they did not find a difference in food intake when individuals were eating ad libitum.
[/quote]

Interesting. Though, I think a long term study would show progressive increases in total energy intake.

37

while we are on the subject, what is the best form of carbs (food only, not supps) to take preworkout and postworkout?

also, its ok to take fructose only when trying to refill liver glycogen, and the rest of the time should be glucose? what are good sources of glucose only foods?

thx in advance.

38

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
while we are on the subject, what is the best form of carbs (food only, not supps) to take preworkout and postworkout?

also, its ok to take fructose only when trying to refill liver glycogen, and the rest of the time should be glucose? what are good sources of glucose only foods?

thx in advance.[/quote]

You don’t need to take carbs postworkout for the specific purpose of refilling liver glycogen for a few reasons.

3rd law of muscle

39

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
also, its ok to take fructose only when trying to refill liver glycogen, and the rest of the time should be glucose? what are good sources of glucose only foods?[/quote]

For the first part, if you’re eating fruit, any sugar-containing foods, or drinking milk (lactose works much like fructose), then your liver is probably doing okay.

For the second part, dextrose, or any starch (starch is basically chains of glucose).