Why Sugar Intake Doesn't Matter (Input Requested)

[kkaustin812]

Keep it up guise, we're over 80% there!

[Apex702]

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.

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.

Maybe the reason HFCS/Sugar/Fructose is an issue is because that it is over-consumed.

*Could we make the same argument that red meat is over consumed among inactive adults resulting in less than optimal cardiovascular health?

Is it red meat and lifestyle or a conscious choice of both by the individual that's to blame?

*I have no claim to red meat = poor cardiovascular health, it was for illustrative purposes only.

[ArchangelEST]

Pretty much everything in excess is going to be harmful. Even more so when there are already health issues or lifestyle problems at hand.(obesity, low activity, medical issues).
Most studies aren't done on healthy, athletic individuals with good meal plans. Something is always lacking and it's so bloody easy to draw the wrong conclusions depending on what "you" want to see in it.

I'm gonna stick to the old but true - Moderation is the key - slogan and that's that.

[masterjb]

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.

Nothing, jsut annoyed me coming into the thread claiming genetics have nothing to do with her progress while contributing nothing to this thread of any value. That is dumb, stop WKing

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 STUDIESnot true, I think you were the one who originally started talking about animal studies (idk pg 3 or something, I posted up human studies or used the studies others posted for my argument (which may have been rat studies don't remember). 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. And this is bad b/c? It shows a short term real life ad libitum reaction. Pretty relevant.

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.I gotcha on this, my bad getting pissy =)

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 - no weight gain, body comp will change most likely though

Group B ate at a moderate deficit - wt loss, sub optimal body comp changes

Group C ate at a surplus - wt gain, with little lean mass change, just fat gain most likely



Which group becomes obese in the long run?
Protein group, but what is the point of this? I never said overconsumption doesn't lead to obesity, I was talking mechanisms that contribute to overconsumption

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

don't know her, and all she did was annoy me and not contribute, sorry

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.

I agree, and I talked about the economics, physical inactivity, tv, the Internet, food deserts, etc a couple of pages back.

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?

I made this general point a couple pages back before we really got into the fructose metabolism stuff

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.
And sugar is half fructose. Overconsumption of sugar is bad, and part of the reason is the fructose content

[Cumulonimbus]

Nothing, jsut annoyed me coming into the thread claiming genetics have nothing to do with her progress while contributing nothing to this thread of any value. That is dumb, stop WKing

If you are a healthy individual, then genetics don't play any role.

[masterjb]

Maybe the reason HFCS/Sugar/Fructose is an issue is because that it is over-consumed. exactly

*Could we make the same argument that red meat is over consumed among inactive adults resulting in less than optimal cardiovascular health?

Is it red meat and lifestyle or a conscious choice of both by the individual that's to blame?

*I have no claim to red meat = poor cardiovascular health, it was for illustrative purposes only.

agreed

[masterjb]

If you are a healthy individual, then genetics don't play any role.

lol srs?

[Cumulonimbus]

lol srs?

You think you need genetics to diet down to low BF%?

Sure genetics play a role in growth, muscle bellies, etc. But having trouble getting lean without any previous medical conditions is not something to blame "****ty genetics" on.

Let's just say that for BB, my genetics are less than optimal.

[ErickStevens]

Masterjb is an idiot. I have mediocre (maybe even horrible) genetics and I still got down to ~5% bodyfat while eating cereal as my main source of carbohydrate. I love how quick the bros are to pull the genetics card.

[Apex702]

And sugar is half fructose. Overconsumption of sugar is bad, and part of the reason is the fructose content

No, the whole reason is simply over-consumption. You just agreed with me in a previous post, over consumption of any calorie source can lead to obesity. Fructose, protein, sugar, fats, it does not matter. It does not have to be sugar or fructose, anything over consumed will likely lead to obesity.

[masterjb]

You think you need genetics to diet down to low BF%?

Sure genetics play a role in growth, muscle bellies, etc. But having trouble getting lean without any previous medical conditions is not something to blame "****ty genetics" on.

Let's just say that for BB, my genetics are less than optimal.

It's certainly part of it. Genetically she may have a higher test level than other women, thus allowing her to get lean easier. That is just one of a million genetic traits she may possess that assisted her in dieting. Perhaps she has a gene where her cells contain a 10% higher mitochondrial concentration than others, allowing her to burn fat more efficiently. Again, genetics have everything to do with it. Maybe they find proof of a will power gene, and she has it. etc etc.

[Cumulonimbus]

It's certainly part of it. Genetically she may have a higher test level than other women, thus allowing her to get lean easier. That is just one of a million genetic traits she may possess that assisted her in dieting. Perhaps she has a gene where her cells contain a 10% higher mitochondrial concentration than others, allowing her to burn fat more efficiently. Again, genetics have everything to do with it. Maybe they find proof of a will power gene, and she has it. etc etc.

Getting down to 3-4% BF is not genetic dependent in healthy individuals.

[Lvisaa2]

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.

I find it ironic that you keep stating that no one shows you any evidence, but when an article and supporting studies are shown you blow them off with some generalized statement.

[masterjb]

Masterjb is an idiot. I have mediocre (maybe even horrible) genetics and I still got down to ~5% bodyfat while eating cereal as my main source of carbohydrate. I love how quick the bros are to pull the genetics card.

Who the **** are you? Scientists already identified a three genotypes where some people respond better to low carb diets, some to low fat, and some unfortunately must go low carb and low fat to burn fat more efficiently. This is genetics. You may be a low fat genotype. Not saying you can't get down you ****tard, anyone can starve themselves, but genetics allow you to do it more optimally, and easier.

No, the whole reason is simply over-consumption. You just agreed with me in a previous post, over consumption of any calorie source can lead to obesitycorrect. Fructose, protein, sugar, fats, it does not matter. It does not have to be sugar or fructose, anything over consumed will likely lead to obesity.my whole fructose argument was that fructose can lead to overconsumption due to no satiating effects... >

[ErickStevens]

Who the **** are you? Scientists already identified a three genotypes where some people respond better to low carb diets, some to low fat, and some unfortunately must go low carb and low fat to burn fat more efficiently. This is genetics. You may be a low fat genotype. Not saying you can't get down you ****tard, anyone can starve themselves, but genetics allow you to do it more optimally, and easier.

Cool story bro.

[Apex702]

It's certainly part of it. Genetically she may have a higher test level than other women, thus allowing her to get lean easier. That is just one of a million genetic traits she may possess that assisted her in dieting. Perhaps she has a gene where her cells contain a 10% higher mitochondrial concentration than others, allowing her to burn fat more efficiently. Again, genetics have everything to do with it. Maybe they find proof of a will power gene, and she has it. etc etc.

A hypothetical is an ironic twist to this thread.

Of course genetics play a part, but you're rationalizing again.

HFCS cause obesity, not lazy people with little ambition that eat too much.

Genetics are the reason people can become ripped, not hard work determination and a comprehensive understanding of nutrition.

I've seen people that were 80lbs OVER-weight and manage to get to single digit body fat, what gene(s) cover both ends of the spectrum?

[masterjb]

Getting down to 3-4% BF is not genetic dependent in healthy individuals.

smh, duh, but makes it way easier, and what I was originally talking to her about was that not everyone would be able to diet down to 3-4% bodyfat counting cals and macros only while eating sugar and refined carbs. They would turn into a wasted, starving, mess

I find it ironic that you keep stating that no one shows you any evidence, but when an article and supporting studies are shown you blow them off with some generalized statement.

Go back to page 3 and start over... I blow over it b/c I have made these same points repeatedly and it gets tiring repeating over and over for nnewbies in the thread...

[ko300zx]

[img]http://www.erickstevens.net/lol.jpg[img]

Cool story bro.

Epic genetic-reversal transformation wizardry.

[juliacheh]

I got back here, yes, broke my promise.

I have low test levels as confirmed by my bloodwork, next?
I never said ALL my carbs came from white flour and sugar.

[masterjb]

Cool story bro.

And this proves? That you were a FFB? irrelevant

A hypothetical is an ironic twist to this thread.

Of course genetics play a part, but you're rationalizing again.
illustrating a point is all
HFCS cause obesity, not lazy people with little ambition that eat too much.
HFCS contributes, lazy ppl with little ambition in combonation with the fructose in the diet today make them fatter than they would be
Genetics are the reason people can become ripped, not hard work determination and a comprehensive understanding of nutrition.

I've seen people that were 80lbs OVER-weight and manage to get to single digit body fat, what gene(s) cover both ends of the spectrum?

Are these counter points, they don't really argue anything? What are you getting at?

[Apex702]

I got back here, yes, broke my promise.

I have low test levels as confirmed by my bloodwork, next?
I never said ALL my carbs came from white flour and sugar.

You came back -- must not have that "willpower" gene masterjb spoke of.

[masterjb]

I got back here, yes, broke my promise.

I have low test levels as confirmed by my bloodwork, next?
I never said ALL my carbs came from white flour and sugar.

We can't prove at this time what genes you ahve or don't have for fat loss along with your ability to preserve lean mass. But based on your insinuations (which are also in your sig), I find it safe to say you possess great genetic traits for fat loss. Whether it was test lvl or not is irrelevant. That was just to illustrate my point.

[masterjb]

You came back -- must not have that "willpower" gene masterjb spoke of.

lol apparently not

[Apex702]

And this proves? That you were a FFB? irrelevant

Are these counter points, they don't really argue anything? What are you getting at?

Where in the study does it orchestrate a diet in variety of foods with fructose incorporated with it? Where is the results of that? Are you trying to say if I had 3 slices of pizza, I would gain more weight if I threw pineapples on it, because that's the reason I'll grab a fourth slice?

What?

[juliacheh]

Insinuations in my signature???

lolwut.

BRB strong misunderstanding of sarcasm.

[masterjb]

Where in the study does it orchestrate a diet in variety of foods with fructose incorporated with it? Where is the results of that? Are you trying to say if I had 3 slices of pizza, I would gain more weight if I threw pineapples on it, because that's the reason I'll grab a fourth slice?

What?

Missing the point. All these studies are saying is that fructose is non satiating b/c of a lack of bg and insulin response, differing metabolic pathways, etc. And no, pineapples (there would be hardly any fructose in this anyways, but that doesn't matter for this point) on a pizza will not cause you to eat another slice lol come on... You are making broad inaccurate generalizations. Anyway, done debating today, heading to the gym. See you guys later =)

[masterjb]

Insinuations in my signature???

lolwut.

BRB strong misunderstanding of sarcasm.

ok one more...
When you make claims like you were and sugar for carbs and lard for fat, u mad? is in your sig... What are we supposed to think? And it seems true about the sugar part anyway, right? So lolwut are you talking about?

ok now I go

[AdamWW]

Cool story bro.

That cakes looks so small Ironic in a way.

[kkaustin812]

Cool story bro.

Good genetic transformation!

[AdamWW]

Good genetic transformation!

Truth is, Erick Stevens is really a cyborg - which explains his ability to eat anything but tree bark and stay lean.