Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Replies
-
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead.
And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh: 0 -
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.0 -
he talked about the evidence and the weakness of the control of his studies.
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
the newer studies are against him too
http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2012/07/24/fructose_not_a_metabolic_evil_scientists_say.html
this is a news article but it is based off of the studies i sent you earlier0 -
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
Well, it's illegal to use hormones in chicken sold in the US. So there's the hormones thing.
As for antibiotics, do you want to take a stab at showing us some evidence that there are measurable/significant levels of antibiotics in an actual chicken breast sold at McDs?0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So what?
I *said*, the sources cited not his credentials.......................
and...a couple of degrees in nutrition....so what?????
ETA: as you edited your post - he backs his articles/conclusions up with studies that actually support what he says, without cherry picking,....that's the big difference.0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So what?
The sources cited not his credentials.......................
and...a couple of degrees in nutrition....so what?????
You do not think that those doing active research and are linking excessive fructose consumption (through the eating of sucrose) with disease don't also have co-researchers with the same credentials?0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So what?
The sources cited not his credentials.......................
and...a couple of degrees in nutrition....so what?????
You do not think that those doing active research and are linking excessive fructose consumption (through the eating of sucrose) with disease don't also have co-researchers with the same credentials?
I have yet to see those studies cited.0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.0 -
so the people who back up lustigs study are wrong too.
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?Alan Aragon has over 20 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. Alan is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan recently lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-07/dr-robert-lustig-fat-chance-beating-odds-against-sugar-processed-food-obesity-and-0
that is a talk between lustig a man of old world healthcare and nutrition(like yourself)
and
Dr. Sievenpiper who did studies on human beings with up to date instruments0 -
i would also like to add if my life's work is becoming false i would be mad too0
-
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
^ Agreed.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
still an appeal to authority 0 -
This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full
From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).
In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."
In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months
If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.
as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage
Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)
Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?
One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."
In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."
Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.
all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.
the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.
anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.
thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Resorting to criticizing someone's typos is pretty low, don't you think? Well, I'm happy for Mr. Aragon and I will be happy to read his article---tomorrow. I'm going to bed right now as I have had a very tiring day. Good night.
0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
still an appeal to authority
Thank you for pointing that out, Coach Reddy. Now, I really must "hit the hay." 
To you all. 0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.0 -
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
Because it is true. Hormones aren't used in chicken legally. Antibiotics must be allowed to "withdraw" prior to slaughter. McD does their own testing, if FSIS finds slaughtered test birds with either in a poultry farm.... Deep dooodooo.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
this is the crux of your argument? keep going. you're doing well.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
still an appeal to authority
Not a fallacy if the person is an actual authority in the subject you're referring to.
Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority,[2] when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
this is the crux of your argument? keep going. you're doing well.
Um, yes, when it comes to whether it's dietitian or dietician.
There's a "Today's Dietitian" magazine. There is no "Today's Dietician." If you look at university dietetics programs, they all say "dietitian." The professional certification is "Registered Dietitian."
Do you have some opinion on dietitian versus dietician or are you just trolling for off-topic BS responses?0 -
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
Because it is true. Hormones aren't used in chicken legally. Antibiotics must be allowed to "withdraw" prior to slaughter. McD does their own testing, if FSIS finds slaughtered test birds with either in a poultry farm.... Deep dooodooo.
That's interesting. I did not know that. I assumed that it did have hormones in there.0 -
LUSTIG11:30:52
We have kept this at an academic and scientific level and I continue to want to do so, and no problem there. So let's discuss the science of it. John, you're absolutely that in doses that make sense, that fructose does not do these issues. The problem is, in the hypercaloric state, as your data also shows...
SIEVENPIPER11:31:16
Yes.
LUSTIG11:31:17
...it clearly does do this. The problem is, we're all hypercaloric. So that's, you know, the first issue. The second issue is fructose for glucose exchange studies, what you mentioned have inherent problems as well for the reasons we have discussed, that is that there is no fructose for glucose in nature, there's only fructose and glucose. And we know from the work of Marc Hellerstein and Lisa Hudgins that when you put fructose and glucose together, you get more liver fat than when you do fructose instead of glucose because the glucose takes up the glycolytic pathway, the fructose goes to the lipogenic pathway.
LUSTIG11:31:54
Lastly, when you mentioned the question about population studies, we have now just finished a study and you've seen the data, which shows that sugar in a global sense, we're talking about across countries over the last decade, with all the appropriate confounders controlled for, including BMI, including obesity, aging, urbanization, physical inactivity and economics, sugar is 11 times more potent than total calories in explaining diabetes rate around the world.
REHM11:32:33
Interesting. Dr. Sievenpiper?
SIEVENPIPER11:32:36
Yes. No, I mean, to his point, he's quite right in terms the limitations of the designs. But in those studies, it is -- those are consumed in a background of high carbohydrate foods, so it is present with glucose. What I would say, though, is what's interesting about this is if you look at this -- you look at the intakes of sugar, it's going up. Professor Lustig did discuss this and how that relates to diabetes and overweight and obesity and metabolic syndrome.
SIEVENPIPER11:32:58
And he's indicating what he's found with his new data is that we actually have a bit of a paradox, though, where in the last 10 years in the United States, for example, sugars have decreased to which the majority of the decrease coming from reduction in sugar-sweetened beverages. About 60 percent of that decrease.
LUSTIG11:33:11
Mm-hmm. That's true.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:12
Well, people continue to consume a high level of energy and continue to become overweight and obese and we continue to have an issue of overweight and obesity increasing, diabetes increasing, metabolic syndrome increasing. We have seen some small decreases in overweight and obese particularly in adolescents. But in general, those numbers are still going up, despite sugars coming down.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:28
And we have the same paradox in Canada. We have the same paradox in the United Kingdom and Australia.
REHM11:33:31
That's interesting.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:32
So, on a population level, I think, you know, Professor Lustig said this and I don't want to -- I don't think that Professor Lustig thinks of this as the sole cause. I know he said it's not. And I think that's what I want to underline is that there are many pathways to overweight and obesity and metabolic syndrome and all the cardio-metabolic problems that come with this, including dietary patterns where you consume too much energy, you consume too much processed meat, too much refined carbohydrate.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:57
And sugary beverages and sugars are just one aspect of that. So they're culpable as culpable as any other form of excess energy. And I think the issue needs to be about excess energy or excess calories, if you like, in general. It's about overconsumption in this sort of culture we have of overconsumption, which I think is the issue and lack of exercise.
Lol who is in a hypercaloric state?
im not
so it is bound to the state of calories you are in
everything is bad for you if you are in a sustained hypercaloric state bottom line.
lack of exercise, hypercaloric state is the big problem for everything is a problem for sugar control
everything that alan was talking about before being hypercaloric
geez Alan must a been pretty dumb. he was already talking about this information before the information was published and lustig admitted to it being hypercaloric
so lustig's belief is. since we are going to get fat anyway, avoid fructose.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.
Well you should let all the Registered Dietitians who went through university programs that advertised their Dietitian programs, who get Today's Dietitian magazine, and work in hospitals and clinics with job titles called Dietitians that they're wrong.
Yes, dietician has been used in the past. I am telling you, however, that this is considered a misspelling by actual trained, certified dietitians as well as the organizations they belong to and the companies that employ them.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.
Well you should let all the Registered Dietitians who went through university programs that advertised their Dietitian programs, who get Today's Dietitian magazine, and work in hospitals and clinics with job titles called Dietitians that they're wrong.
Yes, dietician has been used in the past. I am telling you, however, that this is considered a misspelling by actual trained, certified dietitians as well as the organizations they belong to and the companies that employ them.
who the **** cares?0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
:drinker:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions