Why Sugar Intake Doesn't Matter (Input Requested)

[masterjb]

You are impossible.

How many people that attempt to lose weight are not hungry at some point in the day? I would be willing to bet a vast majority. It's called self control. If you know you've consumed food, and yet still have the desire to eat, it's SELF-CONTROL not to eat anymore food. You know full well you're not dying of starvation, why would have to eat? You don't, its a conscious decision.

I rarely eat fruit or pop-tarts or anything of that nature, but I'm hungry a few times a day, if I just ate every time I was hungry I could be 30 LBS overweight with only MYSELF to blame.

This argument can equate to rationalizations for people suing McDonald's for making them fat because there is HFCS in the ketchup and milkshakes and studies prove it will cause hunger after consumption therefore making McDonald's responsible? Idiocy.

yea that's dumb to sue for that reason, but, the HFCS does contribute to overconsumption, this is true.

Even better, it's not my fault I killed him, the gun did it. SMH
Not applicable to this situation, very simplified irrelevant example

I don't really get what you are arguing against right now? Ok so now it is a matter of self control? So has everyone conceded the metabolic mal effects of fructose? Ok good... Self control is always a part of it, but it is harder to control yourself the hungrier you are or the hugrier you percieve you are (think fructoses' non-satiating effects)

[juliacheh]

yes rly. 9-10% bodyfat? Good stuff, but you may have been 5-6% had you handled things differently. If you are in a caloric deficit, you lose weight period, but from a body comp standpoint, there are better ways to do it than "straight up refined sugar and white flour" lolz.

Did u look at my pictures, smart dude? I was around 7-8 male bodyfat on my last cut which is kinda tough for females to achieve without drugs, if you are unaware.

[AdamWW]

Did u look at my pictures, smart dude? I was around 7-8 male bodyfat on my last cut which is kinda tough for females to achieve without drugs, if you are unaware.

What is "male body fat"??

[masterjb]

Did u look at my pictures, smart dude? I was around 7-8 male bodyfat on my last cut which is kinda tough for females to achieve without drugs, if you are unaware.

it is very hard and I am pretty impressed with your pics actually, but eating like that is not optimal for dieters. No argument in that. You are just a genetic freak if you got down that low eating like that! Good stuff =)

[juliacheh]

it is very hard and I am pretty impressed with your pics actually, but eating like that is not optimal for dieters. No argument in that. You are just a genetic freak if you got down that low eating like that! Good stuff =)

How about NO?

I am tracking calories/macros and genetics have got nothing to do with this.

[Apex702]

I don't really get what you are arguing against right now? Ok so now it is a matter of self control? So has everyone conceded the metabolic mal effects of fructose? Ok good... Self control is always a part of it, but it is harder to control yourself the hungrier you are or the hugrier you percieve you are (think fructoses' non-satiating effects)

I've read about Leptin response on a high fructose diet, yes it seems the rats ate more, but who follows a high fructose low fat low protein diet? If one should exist it would be a diet in futility and completely disadvantageous and anyone in any real-world situation would never attempt. So the studies hold little validity to me. Your argument was HFCS was a cause of obesity. I still do not agree with that statement. Could it be a contributor, yes, but then the same could be said for a variety of foods absent of HFCS.

[sawoobley]

I don't really get what you are arguing against right now? Ok so now it is a matter of self control? So has everyone conceded the metabolic mal effects of fructose? Ok good... Self control is always a part of it, but it is harder to control yourself the hungrier you are or the hugrier you percieve you are (think fructoses' non-satiating effects)

I have yet to see you post any evidence to support your point. All you have done is point out that when people take in insane amounts of HFCS then their health goes down. How about relevant amounts of fructose such as would be seen in someone that likes to eat a lot of fruit. Your over simplifying a complex issue with no data to back up your points. I cited extreme examples to make a point about weight gain because even extreme differences in fructose amounts don't cause weight gain. You try to use that as an example of the health implications of fructose. Well, it is not a real world example. Sometimes we use extremes to see if the possibility of an effect exists but not to compare it to real life.

Your saying that fructose makes you hungrier. Any evidence longer than 80 minute tests? Do you really think it will make a huge difference in a mixed meal diet of solid foods?

[AdamWW]

How about NO?

I am tracking calories/macros and genetics have got nothing to do with this.

I think most people just assume eating a flexible diet isn't optimal - when it couldn't be further from the truth: less stressing about foods, more options, less mental strain, etc.

In most cases I think the people who don't buy it have never tried doing it this way.

[Apex702]

I have yet to see you post any evidence to support your point. All you have done is point out that when people take in insane amounts of HFCS then their health goes down. How about relevant amounts of fructose such as would be seen in someone that likes to eat a lot of fruit. Your over simplifying a complex issue with no data to back up your points. I cited extreme examples to make a point about weight gain because even extreme differences in fructose amounts don't cause weight gain. You try to use that as an example of the health implications of fructose. Well, it is not a real world example. Sometimes we use extremes to see if the possibility of an effect exists but not to compare it to real life.

Your saying that fructose makes you hungrier. Any evidence longer than 80 minute tests? Do you really think it will make a huge difference in a mixed meal diet of solid foods?

I didn't even read most of the study, was not aware that it was an acute result. The study is even less relevant to me now. I just simply disagreed with the statement that HFCS causes obesity. That is nonsense. Without empirical data supporting claims concerning satiety, he'll have to do better.

[IraHays]

I think most people just assume eating a flexible diet isn't optimal - when it couldn't be further from the truth: less stressing about foods, more options, less mental strain, etc.

In most cases I think the people who don't buy it have never tried doing it this way.

For a big part of the population it's not optimal. Most Americans realize if you eat to much you will gain weight and yet the country gets fatter every year. We can chalk it up to "dat der will power" or consider that some people are fighting a losing battle against their bodies by trying to eat certain things in moderation. For many eliminating certain foods from your diet is an effective course of action.

[Cumulonimbus]

And i'll neg you right back for being a consistent prick.

You clearly have problems if you can't just post on a forum without the constant need to NEG people who go against your way of thinking.

You also must be seriously sensitive if something soo trivial bothers you that much.

Boo Hoo, it was JOKE, get over yourself.

I rarely neg members. Everyday I am on cooldown for repping good posts.

You see, you're the sensitive one because you got all pissy after I quoted myself on the topic of not being a pussy to bulk.

I've been in MANY threads where people do not agree with me and I don't neg them. You however deserve them. Also, your neg doesn't do anything.

[sawoobley]

I just found Alan's article on HFCS alarmism: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/

Here are the articles he recommends for more reading:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592634

He also cites those two review articles that I mentioned plus some other good articles. I guess they were that bad after all.

[masterjb]

How about NO?

I am tracking calories/macros and genetics have got nothing to do with this.

O rly? U jsut tracked cals and macros? Taht easy huh? No genetics were involved in your progress?. Lololololol How about NO!

I've read about Leptin response on a high fructose diet, yes it seems the rats ate more, but who follows a high fructose low fat low protein diet? If one should exist it would be a diet in futility and completely disadvantageous and anyone in any real-world situation would never attempt. So the studies hold little validity to me. Your argument was HFCS was a cause of obesity. I still do not agree with that statement. Could it be a contributor, yes, but then the same could be said for a variety of foods absent of HFCS.

Are you fing with me?! You say HFCS could be a contributor to obesity, but it cannot be a cause? Huh?!?! If it contributes, it is causing it, the extent to which it contributes is the only question. And the leptin thing is only a small piece of the argument on my side, look at everything else I posted!!!! Holy ****!!

I have yet to see you post any evidence to support your point. All you have done is point out that when people take in insane amounts of HFCS then their health goes down. No I haven't, since when is 300 kcals of varying sugar concentrations an insane amount? Ever heard of a soda, a milkshake, etc etc etc etc etc!!!!!!How about relevant amounts of fructose such as would be seen in someone that likes to eat a lot of fruit.Did you miss this, already addressed this as well as basically allof your points really Your over simplifying a complex issue with no data to back up your points.You are oversimplifying it and allowing your ego to get in the way of the facts I cited extreme examples to make a point about weight gain because even extreme differences in fructose amounts don't cause weight gain.Only in isocaloric experimental groups, but once again the high fructose groups store more visceral fat among others You try to use that as an example of the health implications of fructose. Well, it is not a real world example. Holy **** you are trolling, it is so real world, wowSometimes we use extremes to see if the possibility of an effect exists but not to compare it to real life.

Your saying that fructose makes you hungrier. Any evidence longer than 80 minute tests? Do you really think it will make a huge difference in a mixed meal diet of solid foods?
Yes, whether the effects are huge or small, fructose is meatbolized similarly, and doesn't signal the body the same way glucose does with satiety. So if you eat 40 kcals of fructose compared to 40 kcal glucose, you are more likely to make it the cals with other foods if you ate the fructose. This is a very small amount, but over time, cals add up.

O and here are just some of my posts where my point was made, since you missed this (i don't even know how you did!)

Not exactly.*





----------------
* Please see: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/5/1354.full

Fructose and the Metabolic Syndrome: Pathophysiology and
Molecular Mechanisms
Angela C. Rutledge, BSc, PhD, and Khosrow Adel
Conclusion from this study: CONCLUSION
It is clear that fructose is a potent inducer of hepatic
lipogenesis. When consumed in excess, hepatic lipogenesis
and overproduction of TG-rich VLDL particles can
quickly lead to overload of adipocytes with fat, which
then stimulates a cascade of events including the net
efflux of fat from adipocytes and altered secretion of
adipokines. Through these mechanisms, the adipocytes
undergo crosstalk with other organs and modify their
intracellular signaling pathways. TNF-, upregulated by
the NFkB pathway, appears to be a particularly important
cytokine in the activation of JNK-1, a kinase that participates
in inhibitory serine phosphorylation of IRS-1, especially in adipose tissue and the liver. Concurrently,
fructose-induced hepatic lipogenesis and ectopic fat uptake
by the liver can cause steatosis, hepatic inflammation
involving inflammatory cytokine production by hepatic
immune cells, and insulin resistance. Sustained
hepatic generation of proinflammatory cytokines leads to
a vicious cycle of worsening insulin resistance and steatosis.
Figure 3 outlines our current hypothesis linking
fructose consumption, hepatic inflammation, insulin resistance,
and dyslipidemia.
Future research may uncover other metabolic pathways,
transcription factors, or target genes, hormones,
adipokines, tissues, or nutrients that contribute to the
metabolic syndrome. Animal models such as the fructose-
fed hamster will be especially useful tools in deciphering
the nutritionally induced mechanisms underlying
metabolic dyslipidemia and other phenotypic characteristics
of the metabolic syndrome. Such models can be
useful not only in further molecular and physiological
characterization of the metabolic syndrome, but also in
the evaluation of various strategies to prevent or mitigate
the syndrome and its associated metabolic complications.


Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on subjective
satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men1–3
This one talks about satiety and fructose

OK, just copied and pasted but here you go

I am confused (I didn't realize you posted that article, thought it was part of your sig)... But I'm even more confused that you cited this article in defense of your argument that fructose consumption does not suppress satiety?? Look at the caloric compensation in experiment 1 and 2 (tables). The higher the fructose concentration, the more calories were consumed overall, indicating that those who consumed more fructose also consumed more calories over all ad libitum. So yes I was confused, but not at what you thought. Look closely at the article rather than just the abstract and you will see these aren't bald assumptions. In actuality, it is you who has mad the misinformed assumptions.

Just some snippets that support my argument from your article:

Both experiments showed greater suppression of FI and increased
caloric compensation associated with higher G:F ratios
in solutions. All sugar solutions except the low-glucosecontaining
sugar solutions (G20:F80 and G35:F65) led to lower
FIs at 80 min than did the water control. These results are consistent
with previous reports that 75-g sucrose and glucose solutions,
but not a G20:F80 solution, suppressed FIs 60 min later (6,
10) and that FI shortly after the consumption of sugar solutions
is inversely related to the effect of sugar solutions on BG (11).
The results contrast with reports that solutions containing fructose
alone suppress FI at a later meal more than do glucose
solutions (12). However, in these comparisons, this effect of
fructose was due to its slow absorption when consumed in the
absence of glucose, which resulted in gastrointestinal distress
(19). For this reason, a solution of fructose alone was not included
in the present studies

These studies do not support the hypothesis that the replacement
of sucrose with HFCS as a caloric sweetener has contributed
to overeating and obesity because of differences in their
short-term physiologic affects (2). The equicaloric solutions of
HFCS, F50:G50, and sucrose were similar in their effects on
subjective measures of satiety, blood concentrations of physiologic
signals of satiety and of UA, and short-term FIs. However,
high G:F in isocaloric sugar solutions resulted in higher BG and
insulin concentrations and lowerUAconcentrations and FIs than
did low G:F.
Which supports my argument that HFCS and Sucrose are nearly the same, but do to economics (subsidized corn), HFCS is consumed at much higher rates, contributing to obesity due partially to fructoses' metabolic effects.

Make sense now?

I didn't even read most of the study, was not aware that it was an acute result. The study is even less relevant to me now. I just simply disagreed with the statement that HFCS causes obesity. That is nonsense. Without empirical data supporting claims concerning satiety, you'll have to do better.

This is jsut getting ridiculous, you guys are ****ing blind,and I'm getting pissed

[AdamWW]

I rarely neg members. Everyday I am on cooldown for repping good posts.

You see, you're the sensitive one because you got all pissy after I quoted myself on the topic of not being a pussy to bulk.

I've been in MANY threads where people do not agree with me and I don't neg them. You however deserve them. Also, your neg doesn't do anything.

I'm sure you probably Rep your buddies on here and that is all.

You've displayed many times you are egotistical, brash, immature, condescending, sexist, homophobic, and now - it seems - overly sensitive.

I couldn't care less about your neg from a number standpoint - I was shocked you took the time to do it at all out of your own childishness. You purposefully seek out my threads having in the past already said you don't like any of them. Well, then STAY OUT OF THEM - problem solved. But no, like a bully, but waltz in spouting your one-word responses from your high-horse.

Once, you claimed my threads were like "twitter posts", and I then cited numerous times where your own posts were much more similar to a twitter post than ANY of mine.

You even make ridiculous 10 seconds videos on youtube where you're eating some kind of cereal+yogurt sludge complaining about people making threads you don't like, or videos with you holding a trophie telling someone you're not a troll - AS IF ANYONE CARES. If you had a head any bigger, you'd freakin burst.

I've held my own in every thread you've tried to shut down, and ultimately you are still the ******* for trying to sabotage my attempt to gain some basic knowledge about nutrition. I hope someday you have a question you want answered and I can be there to witness your hipocracy and clown on you as you do so many other people.

[Apex702]

I just found Alan's article on HFCS alarmism: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/

Here are the articles he recommends for more reading:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592634

He also cites those two review articles that I mentioned plus some other good articles. I guess they were that bad after all.

Good reads.

[Apex702]

O rly? U jsut tracked cals and macros? Taht easy huh? No genetics were involved in your progress?. Lololololol How about NO!


Are you fing with me?! You say HFCS could be a contributor to obesity, but it cannot be a cause? Huh?!?! If it contributes, it is causing it, the extent to which it contributes is the only question. And the leptin thing is only a small piece of the argument on my side, look at everything else I posted!!!! Holy ****!!


O and here are just some of my posts where my point was made, since you missed this (i don't even know how you did!)







This is jsut getting ridiculous, you guys are ****ing blind,and I'm getting pissed

Now you're taking my statements out of context. I went on to say that the same could be said for a lot of foods absent of HFCS. Meaning, excess of any source of calories can contribute to obesity. It's the excessive amount. Not HFCS. Are you blind?

[juliacheh]

Wow, it got retarded beyond belief.
I am outta here.
Cheers, folks

[Cumulonimbus]

I'm sure you probably Rep your buddies on here and that is all.

You've displayed many times you are egotistical, brash, immature, condescending, sexist, homophobic, and now - it seems - overly sensitive.

I couldn't care less about your neg from a number standpoint - I was shocked you took the time to do it at all out of your own childishness. You purposefully seek out my threads having in the past already said you don't like any of them. Well, then STAY OUT OF THEM - problem solved. But no, like a bully, but waltz in spouting your one-word responses from your high-horse.

Once, you claimed my threads were like "twitter posts", and I then cited numerous times where your own posts were much more similar to a twitter post than ANY of mine.

You even make ridiculous 10 seconds videos on youtube where you're eating some kind of cereal+yogurt sludge complaining about people making threads you don't like, or videos with you holding a trophie telling someone you're not a troll - AS IF ANYONE CARES. If you had a head any bigger, you'd freakin burst.

I've held my own in every thread you've tried to shut down, and ultimately you are still the ******* for trying to sabotage my attempt to gain some basic knowledge about nutrition. I hope someday you have a question you want answered and I can be there to witness your hipocracy and clown on you as you do so many other people.

Cry me a river.mp4

Brah, I get clled out for trolling/fraudin

Also, why are you watching all my youtube videos?

Me and another highly reputable member honestly think you are gay byt he way you act, and change your avi all the time (srs)

Also, do you not know what a rep spread/cool down is? I can't rep the same people on a daily basis.

Now please go and grow a pair.

Wow, it got retarded beyond belief.
I am outta here.
Cheers, folks

x2. Micromanaging pussy that is scared to gain weight, and everyone MUST know his macros hence the siggy

BRB putting "cutting on 4.5-5k a day" in my siggy

[masterjb]

Wow, it got retarded beyond belief.
I am outta here.
Cheers, folks

and now it's significantly less retarded, thanks for leaving =)

[ArchangelEST]

and now it's significantly less retarded, thanks for leaving =)

Did you just call Juliacheh Retarded? If I weren't on recharge I'd neg you.

[Cumulonimbus]

and now it's significantly less retarded, thanks for leaving =)

WTF did she do to you personally? Only thing that was proven wrong against you was the fact that she is a female, and ~11% BF for her is low as balls compared to 11% for a male.

[sawoobley]

Fructose and the Metabolic Syndrome: Pathophysiology and Molecular Mechanisms

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17605309
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....tb00322.x/pdf

You cited the above article as your evidence. Do you realize that nearly all if not ALL of the data used to understand the molecular mechanisms of fructose's harmful effects
and metabolic syndrome were generated from ANIMAL STUDIES. It is fascinating, I'll give you that. However, we haven't seen the same effects from fructose in humans
as we see in rodents. Also, the rates of de novo lipogenesis from carbs is much, much higher in rodents than humans. So even though it might be interesting and it may
one day help us understand things better it is not the proof you are looking for. Stop ignoring the human studies and get off the rodent crap. Your evidence is not as
powerful as you think.

lol at you attempting to reference that 80 minute study again.

This is a huge subject and the answer is not so clear cut. This is why I cited two different review articles who tackle this issue specifically. To look at the issue it requires
going through copious amounts of data which they do nicely. Also, the articles that Alan Aragon cited in his fructose article will give you further insight as well.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post748195863

It's been a good debate and I don't want to get personal about anything. We just disagree about the facts.

[Apex702]

If groups ate a high HFCS(CHO) diet(A), ate a high Fructose(CHO) diet(B), and ate a high Protein diet(C) and all groups had an activity level of sedentary --


Group A ate at maintenance

Group B ate at a moderate deficit

Group C ate at a surplus



Which group becomes obese in the long run?

[AdamWW]

and now it's significantly less retarded, thanks for leaving =)

hey now, julia's a cool lady, be nice.

[Cumulonimbus]

If groups ate a high HFCS(CHO) diet(A), ate a high Fructose(CHO) diet(B), and ate a high Protein diet(C) and all groups had an activity level of sedentary --


Group A ate at maintenance

Group B ate at a moderate deficit

Group C ate at a surplus



Which group becomes obese in the long run?

General Q is general.

[IraHays]

Did you just call Juliacheh Retarded? If I weren't on recharge I'd neg you.

Strong WK. Lulz.

[AdamWW]

Are you fing with me?! You say HFCS could be a contributor to obesity, but it cannot be a cause? Huh?!?! If it contributes, it is causing it, the extent to which it contributes is the only question. And the leptin thing is only a small piece of the argument on my side, look at everything else I posted!!!! Holy ****!!

I think what she's saying that there are several indirect factors in the obesity epidemic, but a relatively small number of direct factors.

The direct factors most likely contributing most would be: Increased Overall Calorie Consumption, and Less Active Lifestyles.

Now, when you talk about HFCS as a contributing factor, of course it may be, but you're looking at it from far too narrow an angle.

For one, think about how advertising for food has changed and the public perception diet in general. We have more options, we have more opportunities to overeat and therefore consume too many calories. If anything, rising HFCS is most likely product of overall food availability increasing: more food available = greater need for cheap manufacturing = more need for HFCS (as it is cheap). Thus, you are identifying a correlation, and not a causation. Imagine if someone said gasoline was the cause of global warming. Well, it is and it isn't. In reality, it's what we do WITH the gas: we drive more, we walk less, we bike less, we produce more electricity, we have more children... etc, etc. Thus, are we going to say gasoline causes global warming, or is it the polution caused by it's use?

Frankly, I would be more inclined to agree that just sugar IN GENERAL was a more causitive force than fructose or HFCS alone because in general sugar takes up less volume than other carbohydrate options, therefore less likely to fill your stomach, and more likely to produce hunger pangs. HOWEVER, anyone who can deal mentally with feeling hungry for a short while will not be effected.

[masterjb]

I just found Alan's article on HFCS alarmism: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/

Here are the articles he recommends for more reading:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592634

He also cites those two review articles that I mentioned plus some other good articles. I guess they were that bad after all.

O wow, looks like you actually put some effort into finding some articles. Good, these support your side better, but as I said many times in this thread, the debate rages on, but if you really look at all the data, experiments, contributing factors, Sugar/HFCS/fructose is an issue in the US diet and there is no denying that.

Now you're taking my statements out of context. I went on to say that the same could be said for a lot of foods absent of HFCS. Meaning, excess of any source of calories can contribute to obesity. It's the excessive amount. Not HFCS. Are you blind?

Yes, excess of any food can contribute to obesity, but once again, sugar/hfcs, or any source of fructose have sub optimal metabolic effects. Do you deny that increased TGs do not contribute to adiposity? I see you deny the non satiating effects of fructose, ok... but from the studies you posted, I saw none claiming that this was not true, just that from their reviews, no conclusive evidence could be drawn in humans (in rats it is pretty conclusive, but w/e). I'm glad you finally brought something relevant to the table, but all these studies say for the most part is data is inconclusive. But if you look at the studies, and the way fructose is metabolized, something is going on here. You know what I think, and you can disagree, but this is turning into a shouting match basically. Agree to disagree? I give up, no convincing you, I'll continue avoiding fructose except from fruits (cut them out when dieting though), and you guys can continue doing whatever you think is healthy, optimal, w/e.

[Apex702]

General Q is general.

I know its not very scientific, my point was excess calories cause obesity in inactive people vice HFCS or Fructose alone.

[ilove2run]

good lolz ITT.