Thread: FYI Fructose

Excellent quote Doc! Words to live by. Too bad my 18 year old nephew (who drinks about 10 regular snapples a day!) won't listen

TJ

I read this on the muscle101.com website under macronutrients...

Debunking Carb Myths

All sugars/starches are converted to glucose before being stored as fat!
Starches are converted to glucose more readily than fructose/lactose.
Fructose(fruit)/Lactose(milk) are simple in structure, but act more complex than any starch!

Fructose is absorbed via 'active transport', which requires energy, burning calories.

Bottom line, starches (potato, bread, rice, pasta) are 'simpler' than simple sugars lactose, fructose, and even sucrose!! If you don't believe me, get a blood glucose meter(or Keto-Stix), eat a potato, wait a half hour, measure your blood glucose, and do the same after eating 2 apples. Or just trust me, or look up any glycemic index site!

I am guessing that in the near future, we will all start hearing that in fact fructose, and in particular, high fructose corn syrup, is primarily responsible for societies overweight problems.

And I am not simply referring to the cals ist contains, but that it can really fuck up one's adipostat, thereby literally increasing your natural BF set point.

I suspect we shall also soon learn that there are things we can do to improve one's adipostat as well.

These are not my hypothesis, just what is "out there" if you know where to look. But not yet proven by research, I believe.

Originally posted by mjsturg1
I read this on the muscle101.com website under macronutrients...

Debunking Carb Myths

All sugars/starches are converted to glucose before being stored as fat!
Starches are converted to glucose more readily than fructose/lactose.
Fructose(fruit)/Lactose(milk) are simple in structure, but act more complex than any starch!

Fructose is absorbed via 'active transport', which requires energy, burning calories.

Bottom line, starches (potato, bread, rice, pasta) are 'simpler' than simple sugars lactose, fructose, and even sucrose!! If you don't believe me, get a blood glucose meter(or Keto-Stix), eat a potato, wait a half hour, measure your blood glucose, and do the same after eating 2 apples. Or just trust me, or look up any glycemic index site!

So what? Is that supposed to mean that potatoes, rice and pasta, are more likely to convert to fat, ultimately, than fructose?

That is bunk, and a poor, poor implication.

My disbelief that such an article would be published lead me to that site, and whoever wrote the part about carbohydrates has their wires seriously crossed.

"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate, in fact, the body will survive, albeit miserably, without carbs of any sort! My biggest pet peeve when it comes to carbs is that I still see and hear the terms 'simple' and 'complex' carbohydrates a lot. 'Simple' and 'complex' carbs no longer mean what you might think!

It has been years since this concept has been disproved, but people, and some magazines, still stick to it (though I do notice a trend towards different foods being considered complex, i.e. before they said potatoes were complex, now they say sweet potatoes, which are in fact better).

Here's what some considered to be simple carbs: sugar(sucrose), fructose(fruit), and lactose(in milk). Complex carbs were: (whole-grain) bread, pastas, potatoes(starches), and vegetables. The new measure used is the glycemic index, and it is a measure of how much your blood glucose levels increase after eating a certain food, basically exactly what 'simple/complex carbs' was meant to address.

Here is how the new thinking (glycemic index) compares to old thinking (complex/simple):sucrose is still not great, but better than most potatoes and some breads and pastas, fructose is probably the most 'complex' carb, as it results in the lowest blood glucose level. So as you can see, we must rethink what simple and complex carbs are. "

http://www.muscle101.com/macro.html#carbs

That is awful for so many reasons.

S/he is playing semantic tricks with existing descriptors "complex and "simple", but he has it so ass-backwards it's almost amusing.

Yeah and I am new and reading all these conflicting things is making my head spin..I didn't look as to who exactly wrote that..I came across the link on the net and checked it out....that's why I posted it here to get your views why someone would say that...vs.the no fruit stance here.

It has a lesser insulinogenic effect because very little of it (fructose) makes it past the liver and pretty much exclusively replenishes liver glycogen.

If your calories are in surplus and there ain't no room left to stash it in the liver, fructose can get converted to fat a helluva lot easier than glucose can.

If you're in deficit then it's a different story, and the fructose will less likely be stored, however it won't fill muscle glycogen much at all (if at all) and so is a piss-poor carb choice.

Thanks guys....you really know your stuff..someday I'll be a hot bodybuilding chick..thanks to all your great advice !!

I can never tell when chicks are chicks over message boards unless their names are dead giveaways.

Like when i was calling Cytrix "dude" all those many, hilarious times until she politely pointed out her gender.

Rob, the "just Jen" under her name, kinda gives it away.

Titles can be misleading.

Just check mine!