-
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1046359]I'm sure she will answer, but I have a question....why do you believe its an either or question? Are there no other sources for refilling liver glycogen besides fructose?[/QUOTE]
Exactly so. There are plenty of other ways to fill liver glycogen. Muscle glycogen stores may preferentially be the first stores refilled from starch (and glucose) but it takes relatively small amounts to do this unless you just have these massively huge muscles. And once the muscle glycogen is filled, guess what takes on a lot of the excess?
-
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1046359]I'm sure she will answer, but I have a question....why do you believe its an either or question? Are there no other sources for refilling liver glycogen besides fructose?[/QUOTE]
You are right, any form of sugar as well as protein will eventually be used for liver glyocgen stores. But fructose is used first and quickest. As for her saying it is a toxin, i dont see how this is so. It is metabolized first into liver glycogen and if stores are filled into fat. Either way the body is using it as a fuel source.
-
[QUOTE=Zach;1046369]You are right, any form of sugar as well as protein will eventually be used for liver glyocgen stores. But fructose is used first and quickest. As for her saying it is a toxin, i dont see how this is so. It is metabolized first into liver glycogen and if stores are filled into fat. Either way the body is using it as a fuel source.[/QUOTE]
Well we're back to discussing what constitutes a toxic load. How much and how quickly. Then depending on if you are ingesting it in a fed or glycogen depleted state. So HFCS is different from orange juice is different from whole fruit. For me, I'm not comfortable with the amount delivered in a large bolus and quickly via either HFCS or even juice. Seems that those are more likely to have the advers effects that we are discussing.
There was a long debate on this....the fructose vs starch sort of debate with the PHD people if your interested. I think both sides got to represent themselves in the comments section so draw your own conclusions:
[url]http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/01/is-it-good-to-eat-sugar/[/url]
[url]http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/diets/ray-peat-diet/[/url]
-
Thanks, those were good reads.
-
[QUOTE=paleo-bunny;1045840]
Glucose is a way superior, healthier energy source, thus most people report much better energy levels and health from consuming safe starch over sugar.[/QUOTE]
The energy levels are likely because starchy vegetables rapidly increase blood sugar.
Starches and leafy green vegetables leave behind undigested food particles that cause bacteria overgrowth.
[url=http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2012/12/are-starches-safe-part-2.html]Andrew Kim Blog: Are starches safe? Part 2[/url]
[quote] The chronic ingestion of starches could, sooner or later, cause uncontrolled fermentative activity in the intestines with an attendant production of gases, acids, and alcohol (Hamer, De Preter, Windey, & Verbeke, 2012). These byproducts of microbial fermentation end up causing intestinal irritation and inflammation that in turn, compromises our ability to absorb nutrients properly – predisposing to more fermentative activity.[/quote]
Then there is the fact that fructose has been shown to be superior for mineral absorption, further proving above point.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2729168]Dietary fructose or starch: effects on copper... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
And your oxidative point is debunked here:
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17384340]Orange juice or fructose intake does not induc... [Diabetes Care. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
-
[QUOTE=Derpamix;1046794]The energy levels are likely because starchy vegetables rapidly increase blood sugar.
Starches and leafy green vegetables leave behind undigested food particles that cause bacteria overgrowth.
[url=http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2012/12/are-starches-safe-part-2.html]Andrew Kim Blog: Are starches safe? Part 2[/url]
Then there is the fact that fructose has been shown to be superior for mineral absorption, further proving above point.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2729168]Dietary fructose or starch: effects on copper... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
And your oxidative point is debunked here:
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17384340]Orange juice or fructose intake does not induc... [Diabetes Care. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI[/url][/QUOTE]
Starch does not rapidly increase my blood sugar. The way I eat it, it is rapidly taken up by my muscles to replenish glycogen stores to fuel activity over the next 24 hours. That's how it improves my energy levels. Your interpretation is that of a sugar addict, chasing their next fix. Fructose is useless for that in my experience and in terms of my advanced biochemical knowledge.
You haven't debunked anything. In my opinion, you're desperate to justify your sugar addiction. Now, I could post links to peer-reviewed articles proving an association between fruit juice consumption and colon cancer, but I am sure that would fall on deaf ears.
Fructose is recognised by just about every nutritionist and biochemist under the sun as being inferior to glucose for glycogen loading. I'd say it's the most common consensus out there in the nutrition world.
And I just want to make it clear that the toxicity is the dose. A little bit of fructose in vegetables or fruit in their natural form is harmless. Hence the usefulness of the analogy between alcohol and fructose.
-
[QUOTE=paleo-bunny;1046828]Starch does not rapidly increase [b]my[/b] blood sugar. The way [b]I[/b] eat it, it is rapidly taken up by my muscles to replenish glycogen stores to fuel activity over the next 24 hours. That's how it improves my energy levels. Your interpretation is that of a sugar addict, chasing their next fix. Fructose is useless for that in [b]my[/b] experience and in terms of [b]my[/b] advanced biochemical knowledge.
You haven't debunked anything. [b]In my opinion[/b], you're desperate to justify your sugar addiction. Now, I could post links to peer-reviewed articles proving an association between fruit juice consumption and colon cancer, but I am sure that would fall on deaf ears.
[/QUOTE]
Okay
Also, you're really conceited and condescending. No point debating with you. In all of your vast biochemistry knowledge, the best you can do is revert to using useless personal attacks like everyone else. "Sugar addict chasing his next fix" Boy, where have I heard [i]that[/i] one before.
Also:
[quote]And I just want to make it clear that the toxicity is the dose. A little bit of fructose in vegetables or fruit in their natural form is harmless. Hence the usefulness of the analogy between alcohol and fructose. [/quote]
[b]The only tests that have been done on this have shown unrealistically high doses of pure fructose. Effects taper off as dosages are lowered. It's literally impossible to consume toxic amounts of fructose. It's like with anything else.[/b]
bye, next time leave your shitty attitude elsewhere, if you can. I have my doubts though.
-
[QUOTE=Derpamix;1046833]Okay
Also, you're really conceited and condescending. No point debating with you. In all of your vast biochemistry knowledge, the best you can do is revert to using useless personal attacks like everyone else. "Sugar addict chasing his next fix" Boy, where have I heard [i]that[/i] one before.
Also:
[b]The only tests that have been done on this have shown unrealistically high doses of pure fructose. Effects taper off as dosages are lowered. It's literally impossible to consume toxic amounts of fructose. It's like with anything else.[/b]
bye[/QUOTE]
Well thanks for that intelligent riposte. That's made me scratch everything my tutors taught me at Oxford University and listen to your self-obsessed rants instead. Ha ha ha!
I have a very vivid memory of my tutor telling me about medical doctors who lacked a sufficiently deep understanding of metabolism and injecting diabetics with fructrose during the seventies (they thought - ooh - that's further down the glycolytic pathway, so that must be of help). Some of the subjects died because a sudden influx of fructose gobbles up ATP and starves the body of energy. That's not difficult to grasp for anyone with a scientific understanding of glycolysis.
You come across as very arrogant and conceited and hateful toward anyone who has credentials.
-
[QUOTE=paleo-bunny;1046843]Well thanks for that intelligent riposte. That's made me scratch everything my tutors taught me at Oxford University and listen to your self-obsessed rants instead. Ha ha ha![/quote]
How am I supposed to give an intelligent reply to some self-obsessed dribble? It's impossible. Nothing you said even addressed any of the various points given in that post, and you resorted to "I'm better than you, because I have a degree!" Despite you not knowing anything about me.
[quote]I have a very vivid memory of my tutor telling me about medical doctors who lacked a sufficiently deep understanding of metabolism and injecting diabetics with fructrose during the seventies (they thought - ooh - that's further down the glycolytic pathway, so that must be of help). Some of the subjects died because a sudden influx of fructose gobbles up ATP and starves the body of energy. That's not difficult to grasp for anyone with a scientific understanding of glycolysis.[/quote]
You mean the test done on zucker rats(of which you said didn't matter)? :rolleyes:
And apparently you don't even bother to read the links which I posted earlier.
"One of the points at which fatty acids suppress the use of glucose is at the point at which it is converted into fructose, in the process of glycolysis. When fructose is available, it can by-pass this barrier to the use of glucose, and continue to provide pyruvic acid for continuing oxidative metabolism, and if the mitochondria themselves aren't providing sufficient energy, it can leave the cell as lactate, allowing continuing glycolytic energy production. In the brain, this can sustain life in an emergency.
Many people lately have been told, as part of a campaign to explain the high incidence of fatty liver degeneration in the US, supposedly resulting from eating too much sugar, that fructose can be metabolized only by the liver. The liver does have the highest capacity for metabolizing fructose, but the other organs do metabolize it.
If fructose can by-pass the fatty acids' inhibition of glucose metabolism, to be oxidized when glucose can't, and if the metabolism of diabetes involves the oxidation of fatty acids instead of glucose, then we would expect there to be less than the normal amount of fructose in the serum of diabetics, although their defining trait is the presence of an increased amount of glucose. According to Osuagwu and Madumere (2008), that is the case. If a fructose deficiency exists in diabetes, then it is appropriate to supplement it in the diet.
Besides being one of the forms of sugar involved in ordinary energy production, interchangeable with glucose."
"A point made by O. Warburg and A. Szent-Gyorgyi and others is that there is an important difference between the energy provided by glycolysis and that provided by mitochondrial respiration. They felt that glycolysis was a more primitive form of energy production, and supported only primitive function and cell division, while the more efficient respiration supported cell differentiation and complex functioning."
[quote]You come across as very arrogant and conceited and hateful toward anyone who has credentials.[/quote]
Your credentials don't mean a thing to me, so if you're looking for an ego stroke, look elsewhere. And you can stop bringing it up to make up for your tons of shortcomings. I'm not arrogant or conceited, as I don't continuously pat myself on the back, bring up [i]anything[/i] about myself, or self-insert credentials and titles in order to boost my argument because it doesn't mean anything if you keep falling short.
I'm not hateful towards people who have credentials, I'm hateful towards assholes.
-
There aren't many cons for primal eating IMO. Mark really nailed it I feel for the most part especially with his 80/20 rule. That 20% should be there to fill in any of the cons you feel it has.
