Heinz Organic ketchup does not list HFCS on the label
I wouldnt worry 'bout that though…unless you eat ketchup as a meal
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Even regular sugar is something to avoid. It really is “empty” calories without nutritional benefit.
If you want carbs for energy eat a piece of fruit or whole wheat bread or even pasta or potato. I have no problems with carbs for energy but sugar drinks carry anything good with them. Get your calories from nutritious foods.
[/quote]
You really don’t think sugar has a place in a peri/PWO formula? It’s significantly proven to promote recovery when combined with protein. I’m sure you’re aware of this information, but it seems a little ridiculous to make a blanket statement about excluding sugar completely from one’s diet.
low carb != low fiber
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
low carb != low fiber[/quote]
My insides were fine on low carb, but then I get plenty of fibre from ground flax and non starchy veg.
Hi all,
Glucose Metabolism by organ - After a feed
LIVER
1)Reabsorbed from small intestine and enters bloodstream
2)Enters liver through insulin independent transporter (ie. glucose passage into liver independent of insulin)
3)Is phosphorylated by the enzyme hexokinase. This process adds an extra molecule, phosphate, to the glucose molecule. This makes the glucose bigger. Because it is bigger, it cannot escape from the liver the way it came in. Therefore, it must sit and wait until the liver deals with it (metabolises it)
4)After feeding, glucose is used to make glycogen and directly provide energy for the liver cells.
5)Energy production is through a process called glycolysis. Glycolysis is regulated by many enzymes, but the most important regulator is phosphofructokinase. This is important later.
6)When glycogen stores are saturated, the liver turns the left over glucose into fat, and the fat is stored around the body.
MUSCLE
Glucose is absorbed from the blood via an insulin DEPENDENT transporter. It is phosphrylated by hexokinase. Largely, it is used for energy and to create new glycogen (ie. not much fat is formed, compared to how much is formed in the liver)
FAT
Glucose is used for energy and fat production. No glycogen synthesis in the fat cells. Again, glucose entry is through insulin dependent channels.
Glucose metabolism occurs at all of these sites (and others) simultaneously.
Fructose Metabolism by organ - After a feed
LIVER
1)Reabsorbed from small intestine and enters the bloodstream. Reabsorption is through a different transporter than glucose reabsorption.
2)Enters liver…again, this is independent of insulin.
3)Fructose is phosphorylated by the enzyme fructokinase. This enzyme is only found in the liver (not entirely true, but for our purposes yes). Hexokinase(the glucose phosphorylating enzyme from above) can also phosphorylate fructose, but it has a much lower affinity for fructose than fructokinase does.
4)Fructose, like glucose, can be made into glycogen, used for energy, or for fat synthesis. However, fructose bypasses the regulatory enzyme phosphofructokinase. Therefore, it floods the metabolic pathways in the liver. This is not to say fructose and glucose metabolism are identical with the exception of this bypass…they are not identical. However, this enzyme is a regulator in both pathways nonetheless, as it is a point of convergence.
5)Because the pathways are flooded, you get a higher proportion of fat production. This is due (I believe) to a combination of enzyme saturation and substrate exhaustion.
MUSCLE
1)Fructose enters muscle cells through insulin-independent transporters.
2)Muscle does not contain fructokinase, only hexokinase. Because glucose binds to hexokinase more strongly than fructose, the muscle cannot phosphorylate fructose to any great extent. Therefore, muscle metabolism of fructose is extremely limited.
The above applies for fat tissue also, with regards to fructose metabolism.
Five Point Summary
1)Fructose metabolism is indeed different to glucose metabolism
2)The differences are essentially the same as those stated in the article, but she rightly tried to simplify it.
3)Her assertion that fructose will cause more fat synthesis than an equal dose of glucose is biologically plausible.
4)This is unlikely to be relevant for those in the 10-14% mark, if the fructose is coming from fruit. I cannot say in terms of a figure competitor and I do humbly suggest that unless you can give a reasoned critique you might leave the article be…as always, experience is always the important driver of dietary choices, not what any author writes.
5)Some knowledge in the basic biological sciences is always useful.
-Cloth
PS A lot of the badness of HFCS comes from its inhibitory effect on appetite suppression ie. it stops your body from sending signals which tell you to stop eating. This was understandably downplayed in the article.
High Fructose Corn Syrup�??Not Such Sweet News
For many Americans carbohydrates have replaced fat as nutrition enemy No.1, with sugar being the most dreaded of all carbs. There still is much debate about how bad sugar is, but one thing is clear: Americans eat too much of it, about 50% more than they did a half century ago. But the main culprit isn�??t those white sugar crystals you may be picturing.
The fructose boom
To most people �??sugar�?? means table sugar, which is sucrose and is made from sugar cane or sugar beets. There are, however, many different types of sugar: in their pure form they have names such as glucose, fructose, and lactose (milk sugar), as well as sucrose (which is actually half fructose, half glucose). Instead of these chemical names, most of us identify sugars by their sources, such as maple syrup, honey, corn syrup, and molasses. As far as basic nutrients go, sugar is sugar. But some recent research suggests that fructose, at least in the large quantities many Americans are now eating, poses special health problems.
Where are we getting all this fructose? It is the primary sugar in fruit and honey, but those are not the sources of most of our fructose. We�??re consuming millions of tons of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which now supplies about 10% of all calories in the U.S. diet. The figure is closer to 20% for some people, including many children. In addition, sucrose supplies lots of fructose. Many foods and beverages are also sweetened with fruit juice concentrate, which sounds healthy but is simply sugar, with an even higher proportion of fructose.
HFCS, developed in the 1960s, is a liquid sweetener made from corn starch. Corn contains little fructose, but manufacturers use a special process to boost the fructose content (usually to 55%) and thus make it sweeter. In the U.S. about two-thirds of HFCS is used in soft drinks; the sweetener is also added to everything from baked goods and candies to breakfast cereals and pasta sauces. HFCS is so widely used because it is sweeter than sucrose, easy to blend with other ingredients, and cheap. Corn as a crop is subsidized by the government, and until recently we grew more of it than we could use.
Forty years ago we consumed almost no HFCS and thus much less fructose, but now it has pushed sucrose aside as the leading additive in our food supply. Humans have never consumed anything close to this much fructose before, and there�??s some evidence that our bodies can�??t handle large amounts well.
A long list of worries, but few certainties
The body digests, absorbs, and utilizes fructose differently than glucose, our main source of energy. For one thing, fructose doesn�??t stimulate insulin secretion. This can be good: small to moderate amounts of fructose can help people with Type 2 diabetes keep their blood sugar under control. But studies, mostly in animals, have found that large amounts of fructose may actually increase the risk of diabetes, possibly by promoting insulin resistance.
In addition, unlike glucose, fructose is mostly broken down in the liver, where it can affect the production of various lipids (fats and related substances). Human as well as animal studies suggest that high levels of fructose can contribute to cardiovascular disease by boosting triglycerides (fats in the blood), lowering HDL (�??good�??) cholesterol, and increasing levels of smaller, more harmful LDL (�??bad�??) cholesterol particles. Though the evidence is not consistent, high fructose intake has been linked to kidney and liver disease, high blood pressure, systemic inflammation, and increased formation of cell-damaging free radicals. As with so many things, genetic factors may play a role in how the body copes with large amounts of fructose.
Fructose and weight
Is there something unique about fructose that can cause extra weight gain? Some researchers point to the increased consumption of HFCS as a prime culprit in the rising obesity rate. They claim that because fructose doesn�??t stimulate insulin and may affect other hormones related to appetite, it does not reduce hunger much and thus can encourage overeating. But some recent studies found no difference in the effect on these hormones, hunger, satiety (the feeling of fullness), or subsequent calorie consumption, compared to other caloric sweeteners. Nonetheless, fructose and HFCS clearly play a role in obesity, but it may be just a matter of extra calories.
Fruit yes, soda no
Do not cut back on fruit because it contains fructose. Americans get only a small portion of their fructose from fruit. You would have to eat several servings of fruit at one sitting to get as much fructose as in a can of soda. (A cup of some fruit juices, however, can naturally contain nearly as much fructose as a can of soda, so you should probably limit yourself to one cup a day.) In any case, fruit is great food, containing fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals; it is filling and relatively low in calories. Fruit consumption goes hand in hand with many health benefits.
In contrast, HFCS, like sucrose, simply adds calories to highly processed foods lacking in nutrients. In moderation HFCS or fruit juice concentrate won�??t hurt you. The biggest problem is the sheer quantity of HFCS we�??re consuming and the hundreds of calories it adds to the average American�??s diet every day. According to Dr. Ronald Krauss, a member of our Editorial Board who has done research on fructose and its effect on blood chemistry, �??nearly everyone in the field agrees that excess consumption of sugar, and HFCS in particular, contributes to obesity, and I think there will soon be a campaign to reduce it in our food supply, as there was with trans fat.�??
Words to the wise: If you consume lots of HFCS-sweetened soft drinks and foods, or lots of any type of added sugar, cut down. Even though the jury is still out as to whether HFCS is significantly worse than sucrose, if you cut down on foods and drinks that contain it, you�??ll almost inevitably improve your diet.
UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, August 2008
Found this while seeing if there were different forms of fructose. Like Corn fructose is somehow different than apple fructose.
[quote]Peot wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Even regular sugar is something to avoid. It really is “empty” calories without nutritional benefit.
If you want carbs for energy eat a piece of fruit or whole wheat bread or even pasta or potato. I have no problems with carbs for energy but sugar drinks carry anything good with them. Get your calories from nutritious foods.
You really don’t think sugar has a place in a peri/PWO formula? It’s significantly proven to promote recovery when combined with protein. I’m sure you’re aware of this information, but it seems a little ridiculous to make a blanket statement about excluding sugar completely from one’s diet.[/quote]
I prefer whole food with carbs and meat post workout to drinks. The window is much bigger than many would have you believe although post workout is the best time to consume a sugary drink.
[quote]Grendle wrote:
Found this while seeing if there were different forms of fructose. Like Corn fructose is somehow different than apple fructose.[/quote]
HFCS has a bunch of glucose attached to it from the enzymatic processing. It’s not really the same thing as fructose:
The “evil of HFCS” is that it’s easier to get more calories by consuming products with it, thus making you fatter.
[quote]brancron wrote:
After reading the “Evils of Fruit” discussion, and after hearing so many sincere and health-conscious individuals decry the evils of HFCS, I want to know why everyone is under the impression that HFCS is worse than “regular old” sugar or “natural” sugar or sugar “like grandma had”.[/quote]
I could go on for days about the horrors of industrialized food, as I am sure many of us can. If you are interested in learning why its so bad read THE OMNIVORES DILEMA, you should be floored and really want to change the way you eat when you learn about the food industry.
One thing that sticks out to me, is that we as a western diet consume more corn that the “corn people” being the mexicans and south americans that thie diet is made of corn.
Its disturbing to find out how much corn and soy is in processed foods. Industrialized corn products and the western diet is making us fat and killing us. Making us diabetics and so on and so forth. Its time to take food back.
/soapbox
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
As for the ketchup and things, certified organic products cannot have HFCS in them. (At least for now. There is some pressure to make organic HFCS which is a complete joke.)[/quote]
I thought that, HFCS could be organic as long as it was produced from say, organic corn and such. The term organic has become way too loose and to me anyway, means nothing. Eat whole foods. If your great grandmother doesnt see that its food, dont eat it. You will find foods taste better, the way they are supposed to.
It shouldnt even have to be said that processed foods blow.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Grendle wrote:
Found this while seeing if there were different forms of fructose. Like Corn fructose is somehow different than apple fructose.
HFCS has a bunch of glucose attached to it from the enzymatic processing. It’s not really the same thing as fructose:
Corn syrup starts as corn “starch,” which is a long chain of glucose molecules bound together. The first step in making the corn syrup is separating the individual glucose molecules, and this is done using an enzyme. It is a process similar to what goes into our digestive system when we eat starch. The next step uses a specialized enzyme that converts glucose into fructose. Not all the glucose gets converted, and the percentage of fructose in the final product depends on its intended use. The typical corn syrup you find at the store is about 55 percent fructose (45 percent glucose), which is similar to honey. It is called a “high” fructose corn syrup (HFCS) because standard corn syrup is mostly glucose.
The “evil of HFCS” is that it’s easier to get more calories by consuming products with it, thus making you fatter. [/quote]
Science question, do you need insulin to store nutrients? Supposedly and insulin spike will cause your body to store proteins carbs and fat. If there is any truth to fructose not causing the proper surge in insulin, wouldn’t that mean fat is not being stored? despite the fact that the liver is converting it to fat in the blood?
[quote]johnward82 wrote:
brancron wrote:
After reading the “Evils of Fruit” discussion, and after hearing so many sincere and health-conscious individuals decry the evils of HFCS, I want to know why everyone is under the impression that HFCS is worse than “regular old” sugar or “natural” sugar or sugar “like grandma had”.
I could go on for days about the horrors of industrialized food, as I am sure many of us can. If you are interested in learning why its so bad read THE OMNIVORES DILEMA, you should be floored and really want to change the way you eat when you learn about the food industry.
One thing that sticks out to me, is that we as a western diet consume more corn that the “corn people” being the mexicans and south americans that thie diet is made of corn.
Its disturbing to find out how much corn and soy is in processed foods. Industrialized corn products and the western diet is making us fat and killing us. Making us diabetics and so on and so forth. Its time to take food back.
/soapbox[/quote]
Good little essay on the subject. Its true. We are basicly killing our own population faster. All because they found out the shit is cheaper than regular table sugar. People eat the shit because its super cheap and super sweet compared to natural foods.
Then you have food manufactures putting all sorts of bogus health claims on boxes to make you think you are doing good. Its all fucking lies and bullshit. They know what they are doing, like someone said, you dont find the stuff in baby food do you? No, ofcourse not, they know its horrible.
The government is knowingly killing ourselves, and it keeps getting worse.
WHAT THE FUCK? No one has provided any evidence that HFCS is any different than sucrose in terms of health effects. Why do you people perpetuate so much bullshit?
[quote]brancron wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK? No one has provided any evidence that HFCS is any different than sucrose in terms of health effects. Why do you people perpetuate so much bullshit?[/quote]
Who is perpetuating bullshit? I don’t want table sugar included in every food I eat either.
[quote]mthomps wrote:
johnward82 wrote:
brancron wrote:
They know what they are doing, like someone said, you dont find the stuff in baby food do you? No, ofcourse not, they know its horrible.
The government is knowingly killing ourselves, and it keeps getting worse. [/quote]
it all comes down to which organization has the most money. follow the money with all these things, the studies, the lobbiests, the people that never taught me to speel and all that.
and look at this also, why, in the world does a baby who is fed breast milk from a healthy mom fare so much better than a baby giving formula? They say because breast milk is better, but why? Its becasue we cannot figure out why in the world whole foods are better.
We cannot figure out how to take a whole food, break it down, and remake it and have it just as healthy for us. Mother nature knows what she is doing, stop processing it.
We are drawn towards caloricly dense foods for survival. Add more fat and more sugar to something and we will crave it. Make it look as though it has more calories to offer and we will want it. Its bred into us for survival and the food industry is going to take advantage of it.
What do they do when they produce so much corn they dont know what to do with it? The bottom drops out and it costs more to grow corn than you can sell it for. But the government steps in and helps out. THen the food industry steps in and figures out how to process it further, create new foods, we make gas out of it…and we all pay the price.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Who is perpetuating bullshit? I don’t want table sugar included in every food I eat either.[/quote]
I’m talking about this stuff:
[quote]mthomps wrote:
We are basicly killing our own population faster. All because they found out the shit is cheaper than regular table sugar. People eat the shit because its super cheap and super sweet compared to natural foods.
They know what they are doing, like someone said, you dont find the stuff in baby food do you? No, ofcourse not, they know its horrible.
The government is knowingly killing ourselves, and it keeps getting worse. [/quote]
[quote]brancron wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK? No one has provided any evidence that HFCS is any different than sucrose in terms of health effects. Why do you people perpetuate so much bullshit?[/quote]
You have some kind of boner for HFCS, go ahead eat all the foods that are laden with this shit and see the health effects first hand. I’ve read two or three responses that clearly state the negative effect HFCS has on people who consume it. Go back re read every reply in this thread, you’ll find something useful.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
brancron wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK? No one has provided any evidence that HFCS is any different than sucrose in terms of health effects. Why do you people perpetuate so much bullshit?
Who is perpetuating bullshit? I don’t want table sugar included in every food I eat either.[/quote]
Nor do I. It makes me feel horrible and gives me cravings for sweets that I have worked very hard to get rid of.
There was a study done with the aborigines (sp?) that had moved here and were on a western diet. (you know, one that includes HFCS) and gained weight, became diabetic and all the ill health effects. They took these people, moved them back to thier place of origin and went back on thier native diet.
Oddly enough, thier health improved, weight dropped, blah blah. Im sorry I dont have the specific study to cite, so im sorry if im perpetuating bs, but well, it is what it is.
Heck take it one other way, go watch the movie SUPERSIZE ME and see how McDonalds changed his health. ANd I dont mean just by becoming fat. I would imagine that HFCS is a major player in fast food, so they can make it taste “good” and cheap so we can keep eating it.