Don't want to jack the thread. But has anyone tried Burch tree sugar?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Sugar!
- Thread starter tdad
- Start date
Sk8man101
Member
Exactly^
GeorgeForemanRules
Banned
So you give up.
Typical alt left slug, all you can do is attack, you cower when you actually have to use facts to try and back up your childish opinions.
tenpoundsleft
Member
With all the HFCS around, and the hepatic loads we impose with the drugs and meds we take, why would anyone want to load up the liver with more work?
You guys eat what you want, I'll stick to a bit of grapefruit juice, because it completes my breakfast, and because of its synergistic drug effects.
Edit :
Added this piece from Harvard, your turn to defeat actual science. I still say, don't eat fructose.
Harvard Heart Letter
Abundance of fructose not good for the liver, heart
Another reason to avoid foods made with a lot of sugar.
The human body handles glucose and fructose — the most abundant sugars in our diet — in different ways. Virtually every cell in the body can break down glucose for energy. About the only ones that can handle fructose are liver cells. What the liver does with fructose, especially when there is too much in the diet, has potentially dangerous consequences for the liver, the arteries, and the heart.
Fructose, also called fruit sugar, was once a minor part of our diet. In the early 1900s, the average American took in about 15 grams of fructose a day (about half an ounce), most of it from eating fruits and vegetables. Today we average four or five times that amount, almost all of it from the refined sugars used to make breakfast cereals, pastries, sodas, fruit drinks, and other sweet foods and beverages.
Refined sugar, called sucrose, is half glucose and half fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose.
From fructose to fat
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. (You can see a diagram of these at health.harvard.edu/172.) One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Virtually unknown before 1980, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now affects up to 30% of adults in the United States and other developed countries, and between 70% and 90% of those who are obese or who have diabetes.
Early on, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is reversible. At some point, though, the liver can become inflamed. This can cause the low-grade damage known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (steato meaning fat and hepatitis meaning liver inflammation). If the inflammation becomes severe, it can lead to cirrhosis — an accumulation of scar tissue and the subsequent degeneration of liver function.
Liver comparison illustration comparing normal liver and liver with fatty deposits
Beyond the liver
The breakdown of fructose in the liver does more than lead to the buildup of fat. It also elevates triglycerides increases harmful LDL (so-called bad cholesterol) promotes the buildup of fat around organs (visceral fat) increases blood pressure makes tissues insulin-resistant, a precursor to diabetes increases the production of free radicals, energetic compounds that can damage DNA and cells.
None of these changes are good for the arteries and the heart.
Researchers have begun looking at connections between fructose, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease. The early results are in line with changes listed above due to the metabolism of fructose.
An article published in 2010 in The New England Journal of Medicine indicated that people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are more likely than those without it to have buildups of cholesterol-filled plaque in their arteries. They are also more likely to develop cardiovascular disease or die from it. In fact, people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are far more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than liver disease.
A report from the Framingham Heart Study has linked nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with metabolic syndrome, a constellation of changes that is strongly associated with cardiovascular disease. Other studies have linked fructose intake with high blood pressure.
Limit added sugars
Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of sugar you get from sugar-sweetened drinks, pastries, desserts, breakfast cereals, and more, mainly to avoid gaining weight. The same strategy could also protect your liver and your arteries.
Originally published: September 2011
Abundance of fructose not good for the liver, heart - Harvard Health
Last edited:
tenpoundsleft
Member
@Docd187123
Here's another reference: Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data
It's a loooooong piece, here's from the conclusions (with the inevitable caveat about the need for more research, but show me any study that doesn't include that line):
"there are existing data on the metabolic and endocrine effects of dietary fructose that suggest that increased consumption of fructose may be detrimental in terms of body weight and adiposity and the metabolic indexes associated with the insulin resistance syndrome, much more research is needed to fully understand the metabolic effect of dietary fructose in humans."
It's a fairly dense piece overall - pertinent to our conversation, look at below section on lipogenesis in humans from the main content portion (quoted in its entirety - with a couple of red highlights that I find relevant).
*** My point being that 0.75g/kg body weight really isn't that much - at least not for gen pop - for us who pay attention to our diets, probably not an issue ***
********
Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data
Acute studies in humans
In an attempt to understand the mechanisms involved in fructose-induced hypertriglyceridemia and its contribution to de novo lipogenesis in an acute setting, in humans, the group of Frayn [91] used a high dose of fructose 0.75g/Kg body weight in a liquid breakfast of mixed macronutrients. [2H2] Palmitate and [U13 C] fructose or [U13 C] glucose were added to trace the handling of dietary fats and the fate of dietary sugars in the body. Compared with glucose, fructose consumed with the fat-containing liquid increased the 4-h appearance of the meal's fatty acid in VLDL. They found, however, that the large amount of fructose used led to impaired triacylglycerol clearance rather than contributing to de novo lipogenesis.
In addition, Parks and co-workers [7] aimed to determine the magnitude by which acute consumption of fructose in a morning bolus would further increase TG concentrations after the next meal. Six healthy subjects consumed carbohydrate boluses of sugar (85g each) in a random order followed by a standard lunch 4 hours later. Subjects consumed either a control test of glucose (100%), a mixture of 50: 50 or 25:75 (wt:wt) glucose:fructose. The investigators demonstrated that post meal lipogenesis increased in proportion to fructose concentration in a beverage: from 7.8% for 100g glucose beverage to 15.9% after a mixture of 50g glucose: 50g fructose and 16.9% after a mixture of 25g glucose: 75g fructose beverage. Body fat synthesis was measured immediately after the sweet drinks were consumed. This study concluded that fructose has an immediate acute lipogenic effect; with greater serum TG level in the morning, and after a subsequent meal, even if consumed as a small amount in a mixture of sugars. The small amount was either 50g or 75g taken with glucose in a beverage. However, it is misleading to suggest that the consumption of a specific food or food ingredient was the cause of obesity and the rise of Type 2 diabetes. Similar results with high fructose-sweetened beverages showed an immediate increase of acute 24-hour TG in obese men and women [92].
On the other hand, the fate of fructose may be its oxidation and not only TG accumulation. Using an oral fructose load of 0.5 or 1 g/Kg (diluted in water), Delarue et al [93] reported that 56% or 59% of fructose load was oxidized over 6-h study. Again, a very high dose of fructose was used to examine this pathway.
The studies cited above used high amounts of fructose with or without labeled fructose to induce hypertriglyceridemia in an acute setting to evaluate underlying mechanisms. We can not draw negative conclusions about moderate amounts of fructose as the cause of obesity epidemic from these studies.
********
My own conclusions
Obviously the study cannot "draw negative conclusions about moderate amounts of fructose as the cause of obesity epidemic from these studies" - that's practically a strawman position, it's that extreme. If "moderate" amounts were to cause an "epidemic" the FDA (and many many others) would have been up in arms long ago. No, the real issue is whether it noticeably contributes to liver load and lipogenesis - which the studies show that fructose does.
It's easy to exceed the 0.75gr/kg BW of fructose - once you tally up all the sources - so even someone with a careful diet (who eats fruits) can easily hit that number. Especially as most of us consume in excess of 3K or 4K (or even more) calories per day depending on type and stage of cycle.
As an AAS user, I'm already stressing the system - and my LDL/HDL numbers don't need help to get even more out of whack - and the liver definitely need no more stress than it's already under.
=> I'd prefer that my liver focuses on general body functions, clearing AAS waste and what red wine I consume. Fructose - to me - is an added burden that is avoidable. YMMV - do as you like.
Here's another reference: Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data
It's a loooooong piece, here's from the conclusions (with the inevitable caveat about the need for more research, but show me any study that doesn't include that line):
"there are existing data on the metabolic and endocrine effects of dietary fructose that suggest that increased consumption of fructose may be detrimental in terms of body weight and adiposity and the metabolic indexes associated with the insulin resistance syndrome, much more research is needed to fully understand the metabolic effect of dietary fructose in humans."
It's a fairly dense piece overall - pertinent to our conversation, look at below section on lipogenesis in humans from the main content portion (quoted in its entirety - with a couple of red highlights that I find relevant).
0.75g/kg body weight = 68 grams for a 200lb male.
One large apple delivers about 15 grams of fructose
One 8 oz can of sugary soda = 30 grams
(see more fructose scores here Foods highest in Fructose)
One large apple delivers about 15 grams of fructose
One 8 oz can of sugary soda = 30 grams
(see more fructose scores here Foods highest in Fructose)
*** My point being that 0.75g/kg body weight really isn't that much - at least not for gen pop - for us who pay attention to our diets, probably not an issue ***
********
Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data
Acute studies in humans
In an attempt to understand the mechanisms involved in fructose-induced hypertriglyceridemia and its contribution to de novo lipogenesis in an acute setting, in humans, the group of Frayn [91] used a high dose of fructose 0.75g/Kg body weight in a liquid breakfast of mixed macronutrients. [2H2] Palmitate and [U13 C] fructose or [U13 C] glucose were added to trace the handling of dietary fats and the fate of dietary sugars in the body. Compared with glucose, fructose consumed with the fat-containing liquid increased the 4-h appearance of the meal's fatty acid in VLDL. They found, however, that the large amount of fructose used led to impaired triacylglycerol clearance rather than contributing to de novo lipogenesis.
In addition, Parks and co-workers [7] aimed to determine the magnitude by which acute consumption of fructose in a morning bolus would further increase TG concentrations after the next meal. Six healthy subjects consumed carbohydrate boluses of sugar (85g each) in a random order followed by a standard lunch 4 hours later. Subjects consumed either a control test of glucose (100%), a mixture of 50: 50 or 25:75 (wt:wt) glucose:fructose. The investigators demonstrated that post meal lipogenesis increased in proportion to fructose concentration in a beverage: from 7.8% for 100g glucose beverage to 15.9% after a mixture of 50g glucose: 50g fructose and 16.9% after a mixture of 25g glucose: 75g fructose beverage. Body fat synthesis was measured immediately after the sweet drinks were consumed. This study concluded that fructose has an immediate acute lipogenic effect; with greater serum TG level in the morning, and after a subsequent meal, even if consumed as a small amount in a mixture of sugars. The small amount was either 50g or 75g taken with glucose in a beverage. However, it is misleading to suggest that the consumption of a specific food or food ingredient was the cause of obesity and the rise of Type 2 diabetes. Similar results with high fructose-sweetened beverages showed an immediate increase of acute 24-hour TG in obese men and women [92].
On the other hand, the fate of fructose may be its oxidation and not only TG accumulation. Using an oral fructose load of 0.5 or 1 g/Kg (diluted in water), Delarue et al [93] reported that 56% or 59% of fructose load was oxidized over 6-h study. Again, a very high dose of fructose was used to examine this pathway.
The studies cited above used high amounts of fructose with or without labeled fructose to induce hypertriglyceridemia in an acute setting to evaluate underlying mechanisms. We can not draw negative conclusions about moderate amounts of fructose as the cause of obesity epidemic from these studies.
********
My own conclusions
Obviously the study cannot "draw negative conclusions about moderate amounts of fructose as the cause of obesity epidemic from these studies" - that's practically a strawman position, it's that extreme. If "moderate" amounts were to cause an "epidemic" the FDA (and many many others) would have been up in arms long ago. No, the real issue is whether it noticeably contributes to liver load and lipogenesis - which the studies show that fructose does.
It's easy to exceed the 0.75gr/kg BW of fructose - once you tally up all the sources - so even someone with a careful diet (who eats fruits) can easily hit that number. Especially as most of us consume in excess of 3K or 4K (or even more) calories per day depending on type and stage of cycle.
As an AAS user, I'm already stressing the system - and my LDL/HDL numbers don't need help to get even more out of whack - and the liver definitely need no more stress than it's already under.
=> I'd prefer that my liver focuses on general body functions, clearing AAS waste and what red wine I consume. Fructose - to me - is an added burden that is avoidable. YMMV - do as you like.
"Actual" science shows that the amount necessary to be hazardous to health is unrealistic and ALWAYS in combination with caloric excess.
Lipogenesis and actual fat gain are NOT the same thing.
We have no data showing fat GAIN with excessive fructose consumption while calories were kept under control - there is a reason for that.
So fructose is to blame for obesity, diabetes, NFLD and everything else huh?
Correleation doesn't equal causation but Harvard already know that. It's just much easier to generate headlines by blaming fructose rather than telling the truth - the fact that this conditions are multi-factorial and based on eating too fucking much in general.
Fructose can certainly do all those things...if consumption is excessive & unrealistic.
LOL - your own evidence CLEARLY states that science has NOT shown fructose to directly cause any of these health issues in humans.
It also CLEARLY states not to avoid fruit because the amount required to reach the "retarded" fructose dose limit is NEVER going to happen.
Yet...you advocate limiting fruit and see fructose as the devil. This data does NOT support your POV whatsoever, try again...
There is NO data showing any ill effects of fructose on humans when not combined with caloric excess and/or given in retarded doses. If you read the "Chronic studies in humans" sections of the SAME paper, you would know this.
That reference was an ACUTE study that gave the WHOLE 0.75g/kg BW dose in 1 meal. Still don't see the dose as being retarded? Because I sure as shit do since NO ONE consumes 0.75g/kg in 1 meal.
Since in real life you CANNOT find an isolated source of fructose with sources, including fruit & sugar, containing an even 50/50 split of fructose/glucose it would require your 200lb male to consume 136g of SUGAR along with 100g of fat (since they added 0.5g/kg bw of fat to the meal) to replicate these results. The vast majority of average people don't do this, never mind our community.
Now if you want to focus on the fat, sedentary, unhealthy folks then yes, fructose intake is an issue because its EXCESSIVE and combined with a bunch of other bad shit (too many cals, etc) - something I've been saying all along.
1) You cannot find a "25:75 glucose fructose" mixture in real life, it literally doesn't exist which makes the 3rd sample non applicable.
2) Acute data should always be interpreted with caution since it isn't an automatic translation to a chronic effect.
3) No one is saying that lipogensis doesn't increase, I'm saying that lipogenesis and fat gain are not the same thing.
Also note that in chronic overfeeding trials, giving folks a 50% surplus in the form of an extra 135g of sucrose, glucose or fructose resulted in NO significant differences in DNL so the idea of fructose being more lipogenic and leading to more fat gain is false:
Macronutrient disposal during controlled overfeeding with glucose, fructose, sucrose, or fat in lean and obese women
A 4-wk high-fructose diet alters lipid metabolism without affecting insulin sensitivity or ectopic lipids in healthy humans
4) I still don't consider 50-75g of fructose in 1 meal to the norm. I am supported by the literature since most americans get around 8% of their cals from fructose with the more extreme groups (male college students) getting 12.5%. In either case, the 50-75g in 1 meal dosing does not reflect reality for the vast majority of people:
Food sources of added sweeteners in the diets of Americans. - PubMed - NCBI
Self‐Reported Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Intake among College Students
Nothing you have shown has justified the need to completely avoid fructose. It has justified the fact that issues arise with excessive intake - something I said at the start.
Last edited:
tenpoundsleft
Member
Enjoy your fruit
We will. Arguing with Zilla on diet and nutrition is like having a 28-3 lead against the Patriots...he/they will still come out on top. Seriously though, he is the smartest man I have ever interacted with personally about nutrition. He knows the research in and out better than most ppl know their children and spouses.
tenpoundsleft
Member
Yeah, how the Falcons lost that lead, that's one for the history books - largest lead lost, or biggest Super Bowl turnaround after halftime I think? In addition to being the only SB going into overtime. If I actually cared about football, I might be depressed - it is the home team after all.
I'm not doubting that Zilla is knowledgeable - just that he is overly dogmatic and isolates the fructose aspect from the bigger picture. I'm arguing that fructose have few if any nutritional benefits, that it is proven to impose a hepatic load, that it increases lipogens etc AND while the levels are probably harmless for the average person, we as AAS and other med users (who are also concerned with below normal leanness - well, maybe not the PL guys) we do NOT need any more hepatic stress than we're already getting, and we certainly don't need the empty calories. There's of course also the hepatic load from wine and other alcohol, for those of us who partake.
It's your body, go ahead - drink that sweetened Coke, enjoy Pop Tarts, apple sauce, Wonder Bread etc
I'm still minimizing my fruit intake to: a small glass of grape fruit juice, some Schizandra, Goji, and blueberries, and the occasional banana in protein shakes. That I can live with. I'm not a purist. ;-)
1) Being dogmatic tends to come with the territory of being right or knowing "the research in and out better than most ppl know their children and spouses" as Doc put it it.
2) The irony of you accusing me of isolating "the fructose aspect from the bigger picture" while citing sources that accuses fructose of causing diabetes, NFLD and obesity is strong.
3) In regards to fruit specifically, classing then as empty calories because of the fructose content while ignoring the nutrient density shows that YOU are missing the bigger picture man. The irony is just off the scale at this point.
4) I've had clients rely on fruit as the EXCLUSIVE source of carbs during contest prep and do extremely well. As a result, your concerns over "leanness" are not supported.
5) Your inability to understand the difference between nondiet sodas and fruit due to your fixation on fructose is your undoing here.
It's what makes your advice fundamentally incorrect. Though of course you are entitled to do what you wish, just don't lead others down the same wrong path
tenpoundsleft
Member
1) Being dogmatic tends to come with the territory of being right or knowing "the research in and out better than most ppl know their children and spouses" as Doc put it it.
2) The irony of you accusing me of isolating "the fructose aspect from the bigger picture" while citing sources that accuses fructose of causing diabetes, NFLD and obesity is strong.
3) In regards to fruit specifically, classing then as empty calories because of the fructose content while ignoring the nutrient density shows that YOU are missing the bigger picture man. The irony is just off the scale at this point.
4) I've had clients rely on fruit as the EXCLUSIVE source of carbs during contest prep and do extremely well. As a result, your concerns over "leanness" are not supported.
5) Your inability to understand the difference between nondiet sodas and fruit due to your fixation on fructose is your undoing here.
It's what makes your advice fundamentally incorrect. Though of course you are entitled to do what you wish, just don't lead others down the same wrong path
EDIT: you wouldn't be Vegan, would you?
Last edited:
I'm beating a dead horse telling you that your missing the big picture and then you ask if I'm a vegan. Painful (and no I'm not).
Another one joins the ignore list.
tenpoundsleft
Member
You're sensitive enough to be a Vegan - just curious if you had caught that religion. Would have explained a lot. I guess it's down to being a coastal big city dweller then.
tenpoundsleft
Member
A post about nutrients - and to some degree sugar.
As you might have figured out, I prefer to get my micronutrients and vitamins from dark green veggies - which I grow a lot of on my property - grown in deep, rich, soil resulting from a decade plus of composting everything from leaves and lawn clippings to dozens of truckloads of spring time slash dumped by the utility company - for free at that!
Stuff in my garden grows like crazy - and is so tasty. It's about 50'x50' - plenty for our family and friends. It even ripens weeks ahead of what other people in the area with less rich soil can manage.
On that note, check this from Scientific American:
Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?
The poor soil conditions for commercially grown greens (whether fruit or otherwise) are a concern - add premature harvesting and long-distance shipping to the problem.
If you can, I recommend growing your own, or finding a local farmer or hobbyist farmer with quality greens.
(Let's see if Zilla can stay out of this then - hopefully I am indeed on his ignore list)
As you might have figured out, I prefer to get my micronutrients and vitamins from dark green veggies - which I grow a lot of on my property - grown in deep, rich, soil resulting from a decade plus of composting everything from leaves and lawn clippings to dozens of truckloads of spring time slash dumped by the utility company - for free at that!
Stuff in my garden grows like crazy - and is so tasty. It's about 50'x50' - plenty for our family and friends. It even ripens weeks ahead of what other people in the area with less rich soil can manage.
On that note, check this from Scientific American:
Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?
The poor soil conditions for commercially grown greens (whether fruit or otherwise) are a concern - add premature harvesting and long-distance shipping to the problem.
If you can, I recommend growing your own, or finding a local farmer or hobbyist farmer with quality greens.
(Let's see if Zilla can stay out of this then - hopefully I am indeed on his ignore list)
I'm a huge Pats fan so I'm thrilled they won!
I eat a lot of fruit but don't drink much soda at all. You are missing the bigger picture bc fructose only poses as problem when eaten in absurdly unrealistic quantities (same as almost anything else). Nobody is denying that. What we are saying though is a few servings of fruit a day and maybe a soda here or there isn't going to be detrimental towards anything and can actually hold benefits over restricting them.
So using gatorade as a preworkout and intra. How fast are those sugars usuable for liftin?
Your body uses stored glycogen for lifting.
so an intra drink is pointless?
Yes, no, and maybe lol.
The answer would depend upon the rest of your day's nutrition.
ok cool I completely understand now.
