Carbs and sugar?

sjohnny

Do you understand the meaning of the word "excess"?

lthames0810

Ok, now I'm in.

jofjltncb6

Do you understand the meaning of the word "excess"?

Apparently, that word is entirely optional...as in, if I increase the amount of fructose that comprises my 2700 calories (maintenance) or fewer, I will stop maintaining/slowly losing weight and will automatically/magically start gaining weight...

...except when sometimes the argument is shifted to my health will automatically/magically be impaired for entirely nebulous reasons...

...because science!

Vigilance88

Just more scaremongering on your part. Repeating the same bs that Lustig spews.

I'd be interested to see how knowledgeable you are if you would start addressing some of the actual science that has been discussed or defend your claims, without copying and posting the same nonsense over and over. The only people you acknowledge are the ones who buy into this sugar crusade you are on.

You are providing this board with no actual knowledge. Just copies of articles. A smart man Alan Aragon (who destroyed your Prince Lustig in a video you have yet to acknowledge), speak to someone long enough and you can tell if they actually know what they are talking about and understand it or are they simply repeating what they heard. I reckon you're the latter.

I'm imagining her literaly sitting like this in front of her screen.

Joanne_Moniz

I always go over on my alotted numbers for carbs and sugar but thats because I eat alot of fruit. Is it still bad to go over or since it's from fruit is it ok? Does the body digest "natural" surgar and carbs better or is ther no such thing as "natural" sugars and carbs?

Another great piece from the medical community... 16 percent of fructose... we are getting SO much more than this!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/health/research/fructose-consumption-increases-visceral-fat-study-reports.html?_r=0

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny On Obesity Group

asciiqwerty

Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.

This means that so far this is only correlative, and that the article itself can quote no causative data at all. Correlation does not, and can not imply causation.

JenSD6

Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.

This means that so far this is only correlative, and that the article itself can quote no causative data at all. Correlation does not, and can not imply causation.

Yeah, that whole article is full of maybe, might, and perhaps.

prattiger65

I always go over on my alotted numbers for carbs and sugar but thats because I eat alot of fruit. Is it still bad to go over or since it's from fruit is it ok? Does the body digest "natural" surgar and carbs better or is ther no such thing as "natural" sugars and carbs?

Another great piece from the medical community... 16 percent of fructose... we are getting SO much more than this!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/health/research/fructose-consumption-increases-visceral-fat-study-reports.html?_r=0

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny On Obesity Group

Joanne, I am asking you here publicly, will you allow me to join your group? If so, will I be allowed to post articles and studies that refute what you post here?

PikaKnight

I always go over on my alotted numbers for carbs and sugar but thats because I eat alot of fruit. Is it still bad to go over or since it's from fruit is it ok? Does the body digest "natural" surgar and carbs better or is ther no such thing as "natural" sugars and carbs?

Another great piece from the medical community... 16 percent of fructose... we are getting SO much more than this!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/health/research/fructose-consumption-increases-visceral-fat-study-reports.html?_r=0

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny On Obesity Group

Joanne, I am asking you here publicly, will you allow me to join your group? If so, will I be allowed to post articles and studies that refute what you post here?

Probably not. Everyone that has done so gets kicked out pretty fast.

24inchesplease

Sugar from fruit is amazing!!! packet with vitamins, minerals, water, energy... as long as is from fruit is 100% ok, I always go over because i eat a lot of fruit

tigersword

Sugar from fruit is amazing!!! packet with vitamins, minerals, water, energy... as long as is from fruit is 100% ok, I always go over because i eat a lot of fruit

Actually, none of the vitamins, minerals, or water are in the sugar in the fruit.

jofjltncb6

Sugar from fruit is amazing!!! packet with vitamins, minerals, water, energy... as long as is from fruit is 100% ok, I always go over because i eat a lot of fruit

What is i get sugar from fruit, vegetables and some ice cream daily but remain in a deficit?

Depends.


Do you believe in magic?

yarwell

Once the muscles are full glycogen gets stored in the liver. It's got nothing to do with fructose. The liver makes glycogen. The muscles don't.

Really ? That would require glycogen to travel in the blood to the muscles. Does that happen .......

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2011684 "Muscle glycogen synthesis before and after exercise."

"glycogen synthase in skeletal muscle" in www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15294033 seems to suggest the process occurs in the muscle too.

yarwell

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

tennisdude2004

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

Thanks for the response and explanation.

tigersword

Okay so you have full glycogen stores in your muscles and liver and you consume 1000 calories of sugar (no fat no protein) what happens to the sugar that has just hit the blood stream?

Also you are not burning it off with exercise!

Some / most of it will get stored, as 1000 calories are going to hit the blood stream faster than 1000 calories are burned and the body will avoid hyperglycaemia if it can.

With 5 grams of glucose in the bloodstream there's no way 250 grams can be accommodated without silly high blood sugars (even if only ~125g of it are glucose).

So if I had full gylcogen tanks and was sat watching the TV using 70 cals/hr in say the 4 hours it took to digest the sugar I would only have "burned" 70 grams or 280 cals leaving 720 going into storage as 80g of fat, if my fat burn had dropped to zero.

Faster digestion (very likely if eating sugar - with glucose there is no digestion) implies more storage for subsequent release. The "calorie deficit" model needs to be applied to a 4-hour or similar postprandial period, or an hour, or real time, and not just to a 24h day or a week.

Why wouldn't you apply it to a 24 hour day? How would fat burning be zero, when fat burning is a constant, 24/7 process? What would net fat oxidation be after 24 hours in a deficit? Are you trying to say that storage would exceed oxidation? Or are you intentionally ignoring the fact that fat oxidation is occurring to try and skew your answer? To go even further, what would happen in that 4 hour period after eating 1000 calories of pure fat? Hint, it would also be stored as body fat, just like the sugar.

We talk in 24 hour periods because that's what matters. The human body is constantly storing and oxidizing fat. What matters is the overall net storage or oxidation over time, not what happens in a 2 or 3 hour period.