Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    zpl
    zpl is offline
    Bike Fun Fanatic zpl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    2008 Salsa Casseroll, 2012 Surly Disc Trucker
    Posts
    619
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Sugar: The Bitter Truth

    I just watched this presentation by Dr. Robert Lustig and I can't recommend it enough for those of us working on losing weight and improving our health:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    Scott

  2. #2
    Mystery Meat gitarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Oh!
    My Bikes
    Soma Saga, 1991 Sirrus, Specialized Secteur Elite, Miele Umbria Elite.
    Posts
    1,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't have a hour and a half. Please have an executive summary on my desk by morning.

  3. #3
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gitarzan View Post
    I don't have a hour and a half. Please have an executive summary on my desk by morning.
    http://www.metafilter.com/85684/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth

    Sugar: The Bitter Truth.Robert H. Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics at UCSF, discusses the biochemical properties of fructose and makes the case for why it should be considered, essentially, a poison. [Youtube, 1.5 hours]

    While the cane sugar vs high-fructose corn syrup issue is frequently discussed online, the two substances are remarkably similar. Sucrose almost immediately breaks into fructose and glucose (in 50:50 ratio) in digestion, while HFCS contains both in a 55:45 ratio. In Dr. Lustig's view, refined sugar and HFCS can be considered equally bad for humans, due to their fructose content.

    His talk is focused on fructose, and goes into detail on the metabolism of it in the liver (since, unlike glucose, fructose can't be used directly by the other parts of the body). He also touches on USDA dietary recommendations, including the recent decades preoccupied with reducing dietary fat, as well as the commonly cited (kcal in - kcal out = weight change) equation and its shortcomings for addressing obesity
    I.e. calories don't tell the whole story; fructose has an especially bad effect on the body because of its very different metabolic path.

  4. #4
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    I.e. calories don't tell the whole story; fructose has an especially bad effect on the body because of its very different metabolic path.
    Fructose may have a different metabolic pathway but that is not necessarily bad or wrong. The liver converts it to glycogen which is the same end product for metabolism of glucose. The amount of fructose consumed is the problem, not the carbohydrate itself. If you want to avoid fructose entirely, you'll have to stop eating fruit and some vegetables, which is even worse for your overall health.

    Look at the man's science carefully, too. A claim that ethanol is a 'carbohydrate' is highly questionable and I know of few chemists that would agree.
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  5. #5
    XR2
    XR2 is offline
    Senior Member XR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    the foothills
    My Bikes
    88 Bridgestone T700
    Posts
    938
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is so much bad information (wacky stuff too) now I don't know what to believe anymore.
    I owe-therefore I am.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Mr. Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA.
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
    Fructose may have a different metabolic pathway but that is not necessarily bad or wrong. The liver converts it to glycogen which is the same end product for metabolism of glucose. The amount of fructose consumed is the problem, not the carbohydrate itself. If you want to avoid fructose entirely, you'll have to stop eating fruit and some vegetables, which is even worse for your overall health.
    It is obvious you did not watch the video thoroughly. He didn't say to avoid fructose entirely. In fact, towards the end, there's this segment where he suggests that nature sources of fructose (such as in fruits) is acceptable since these come packaged with fiber and other nutrients. What he wanted to point out was that the fructose metabolic pathway has a much higher propensity to move towards the unhealthy side of things.


    Quote Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
    Look at the man's science carefully, too. A claim that ethanol is a 'carbohydrate' is highly questionable and I know of few chemists that would agree.
    Although I wouldn't exactly classify ethanol as a carbohydrate (its interesting bit being the -OH functional group), his point was that the fructose metabolic pathway is similar to alcohol's. Remember that his lecture was intended to be presented to an educated audience who may not necessarily be experts; only 25% of those in attendance had any sort of biochemistry background. Regardless, the metabolic pathways presented were vetted by a PhD biochemist (and MDs must have had plenty of biochemistry classes) and I see no reason to question the technical accuracy of his presentation.

  7. #7
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Fly View Post
    It is obvious you did not watch the video thoroughly. He didn't say to avoid fructose entirely. In fact, towards the end, there's this segment where he suggests that nature sources of fructose (such as in fruits) is acceptable since these come packaged with fiber and other nutrients. What he wanted to point out was that the fructose metabolic pathway has a much higher propensity to move towards the unhealthy side of things.
    I didn't watch the video at all. I did look at his slides from his Powerpoint presentation. One can gather from those that he has a similar mentality to others with an 'xxx is bad for you and if you avoid it altogether you'll have the key to happiness' attitude. There is nothing wrong with any food that is safe for a human to consume. Letting sugar...or sucralose...or aspartame...or whatever the food bogie man of the moment is...cross your lips isn't a death sentence. Use any food in moderation and you'll do fine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Fly View Post
    Although I wouldn't exactly classify ethanol as a carbohydrate (its interesting bit being the -OH functional group), his point was that the fructose metabolic pathway is similar to alcohol's. Remember that his lecture was intended to be presented to an educated audience who may not necessarily be experts; only 25% of those in attendance had any sort of biochemistry background. Regardless, the metabolic pathways presented were vetted by a PhD biochemist (and MDs must have had plenty of biochemistry classes) and I see no reason to question the technical accuracy of his presentation.
    No chemist would ever classify ethanol as a carbohydrate. Since ethanol is an intoxicant and fructose isn't, the metabolic pathways cannot be the same...or even similar for that matter. Ethanol is converted to a number of other chemicals before it gets to the point of being to something similar to the end product of fructose. Most of those chemicals are responsible for the morning after regrets.
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Mr. Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA.
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
    Since ethanol is an intoxicant and fructose isn't, the metabolic pathways cannot be the same...or even similar for that matter. Ethanol is converted to a number of other chemicals before it gets to the point of being to something similar to the end product of fructose. Most of those chemicals are responsible for the morning after regrets.
    All I have to say is watch the video. A true scientist will not close his/her mind to rational arguments supported by data. Seek to the later half of the video if you don't have time since that's where he explains how similar certain sections of the metabolic pathways are.

  9. #9
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Fly View Post
    All I have to say is watch the video. A true scientist will not close his/her mind to rational arguments supported by data. Seek to the later half of the video if you don't have time since that's where he explains how similar certain sections of the metabolic pathways are.
    Sorry but I'm going to go a little testy on you. I get all kinds of crap from people about my credentials from all kinds of people on these forums who keep telling me that I'm stupid and not a 'real' scientist. Let me assure you that I am, in fact, a real live practicing bench chemist...a true test tube clinker...with nearly 3 decades of hands-on daily science work like designing experiments, building equipment to carry out those experiments, interpreting the data, writing up the data, developing new hypotheses and testing them, etc. I know what is a crack pot idea...I've even had a few myself...when I see one.

    I tell you this not as an appeal to authority or as a intellectual bludgeon but as a way of telling you that I know a little about somethings. I don't know everything and I do make mistakes occasionally but I don't make mistakes all the time...as others might have you believe.

    I'm not a biochemist but I know how to read and understand. Since I don't want to take up space by reposting a graphic, go here to see the metabolic flow chart and an explanation of the metabolism of ethanol.

    On the graphic marked Glycolysis, you'll see the pathway for the metabolism of ethanol way down at the bottom of the graphic. If you look around on the graphic you'll also see fructose. Neither follows even similar pathways. The only thing they share in common is the location...the liver...of the metabolism.

    The problem with calling ethanol a carbohydrate and saying that ethanol follows a similar metabolic pathway as fructose is that ethanol makes acetaldehyde then acetic acid then acetyl-CoA on the way to making pyruvate finally lactate.

    Fructose makes none of those compounds. (See the metabolic pathway here) The pathway is completely and entirely different. It shares nothing in any of the steps in common with the metabolism of ethanol. That fact is why I reject Dr. Lustig contention that ethanol is the same as fructose. It's not true.

    In the end, what a "true scientist" does is look at what is presented, see if it stands up to the smell test and, if it doesn't, call bull****, diplomatically, on it. Some of Dr. Lustig's work may have merit but some of it isn't supported by the science. And I believe that we consume too much sugar and high fructose corn syrup in this country. But to say that fructose is as hard on the liver and body as ethanol or to claim that the metabolism is the same, is not understanding the science or attempting to bend the science make an ideological point. You can use science to make an ideological point...just don't try to bend it

    Please understand that I'm not making a personal attack on you. I am a little peeved at being told that I'm not a 'true scientist'...again
    Last edited by cyccommute; 12-26-09 at 05:56 PM.
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    121
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I candy corn.....

  11. #11
    Pedals, Paddles and Poles Daspydyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Btw the Mohave desert and AREA 51
    My Bikes
    Scott Spark 20, Orbea Orca
    Posts
    5,182
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have researched sugar in extreme conditions the past two days. My conclusion, based on repeated and varied experiments, intense observation and more of the same is:

    Sugar is a rush up front and regrets within a few hours. More research is anticipated in the coming 10 days.
    I think its disgusting and terrible how people treat Lance Armstrong, especially after winning 7 Tour de France Titles while on drugs!

    I can't even find my bike when I'm on drugs. -Willie N.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    talking of alcohol/ethanol has anyone seen this news ?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...velopment.html
    could some kind Moderator please help me with recovering my original ID (earleybird) please.
    I have emailed Admin in June but no response .

  13. #13
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
    Fructose may have a different metabolic pathway but that is not necessarily bad or wrong.
    Not "necessarily", no. That would depend on the actual pathway.

    ..You were too lazy to find out what is, weren't you?

    The liver converts it to glycogen which is the same end product for metabolism of glucose.
    Yes. The sugar's final destiny as glycogen at isn't the problem.

    Again: you were too lazy to find out what the problem is, weren't you?

    The amount of fructose consumed is the problem, not the carbohydrate itself.
    That's your opinion as an "expert", hm?

  14. #14
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
    Sorry but I'm going to go a little testy on you. I get all kinds of crap from people about my credentials from all kinds of people on these forums who keep telling me that I'm stupid and not a 'real' scientist. Let me assure you that I am, in fact, a real live practicing bench chemist...a true test tube clinker...with nearly 3 decades of hands-on daily science work like designing experiments, building equipment to carry out those experiments, interpreting the data, writing up the data, developing new hypotheses and testing them, etc. I know what is a crack pot idea...I've even had a few myself...when I see one.
    Based on past posts I find it impossible to believe that this guy is a professional scientist. Giving him the maximum possible benefit of a doubt maybe he's a lab tech or basement tinkerer who thinks that he deserves the title.

    Since ethanol is an intoxicant and fructose isn't, the metabolic pathways cannot be the same...or even similar for that matter.
    This is silliness. Lustig's point is that fructose is like alcohol in that it has to take a metabolic path through the liver before it becomes useful glycogen, and that overworking the liver with either has similar consequences. In the sense that is important to Lustig's argument the pathways are irrefutably similar! He didn't say "The chemistry of metabolizing alcohol and fructose in the liver are the same!" but "Fructose and alcohol are both have to be processed by the liver in a way that other energy sources do not, and the over consumption of each has similar biological consequences. Thus you can no more equate consuming 3000cals of a day brown rice with consuming 3000calories of fructose than you can with consuming 3000cals of grain whisky. In each case there will be consequences!"

    To give you an idea of how lazy cycommute was in "analyzing" Lustig's work and concluding that because fructose ends as glycogen it doesn't matter that it passes through the liver on the way:-

    http://today.ucsf.edu/stories/on-the...stig-responds/

    White sugar is sucrose, which is half glucose and half fructose (fruit sugar). Although glucose generates an insulin response (and therefore promotes deposition of energy into fat and weight gain right after a meal), fructose is the really bad actor. Fructose is like “alcohol without the buzz.” It poisons your liver, and makes it insulin resistant; therefore, your pancreas makes even more insulin to make the liver work properly. This forces energy into fat all the time. Maple syrup and honey are just glucose. While caloric and insulin generating (therefore obesogenic), they don’t have fructose to damage the liver and promote insulin resistance. So, although not perfect, they would be better than sucrose.
    Whether Lustig is right or wrong, it is this passage through the liver that is the key claim. The messed up insulin response triggers - according to Lustig - abnormal fat storage and by-passes the body's normal satiation triggers.

    I.e. cycocommute has misunderstood literally everything - except that the liver, alcohol, and fructose were mentioned!

    Best overview I could find:

    http://www.ucsf.edu/science-cafe/art...se-sugar-diet/
    Last edited by meanwhile; 12-28-09 at 02:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Not "necessarily", no. That would depend on the actual pathway.

    ..You were too lazy to find out what is, weren't you?



    Yes. The sugar's final destiny as glycogen at isn't the problem.

    Again: you were too lazy to find out what the problem is, weren't you?



    That's your opinion as an "expert", hm?
    Feeling a little bruised?
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Mr. Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA.
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
    Feeling a little bruised?
    Ridicule! Good tactic!

  17. #17
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Based on past posts I find it impossible to believe that this guy is a professional scientist. Giving him the maximum possible benefit of a doubt maybe he's a lab tech or basement tinkerer who thinks that he deserves the title.
    Pot? Kettle? Black? Considering how wrong you are about your elementary physics
    as well as other things you've said, I could certainly ask the same about you


    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    This is silliness. Lustig's point is that fructose is like alcohol in that it has to take a metabolic path through the liver before it becomes useful glycogen, and that overworking the liver with either has similar consequences. In the sense that is important to Lustig's argument the pathways are irrefutably similar! He didn't say "The chemistry of metabolizing alcohol and fructose in the liver are the same!" but "Fructose and alcohol are both have to be processed by the liver in a way that other energy sources do not, and the over consumption of each has similar biological consequences. Thus you can no more equate consuming 3000cals of a day brown rice with consuming 3000calories of fructose than you can with consuming 3000cals of grain whisky. In each case there will be consequences!"
    Since you've said that I'm to lazy to look up information, perhaps you could go look up some information on your own before attacking me. What is the end product of ethanol metabolism? If you are going to call some one stupid then you'd better know.

    Ethanol does not end up as glycogen. 90% of the ethanol you consume is oxidized to acetic acid which then makes pyruvic acid which is eventually converted to lactic acid or may, after several steps, become glycogen. Fructose is converted to glycogen by an entirely different pathway with different steps and different end products. If you can't look it up for yourself, you can follow the link I posted earlier. That may be too hard for you but the information is there if you care to read it

    Just because two processes occur in the liver, doesn't mean that both are bad. Ethanol, an intoxicant...or do you want to argue that point too...is metabolized in the liver and is bad for the liver (as well as other parts of the body). Fructose isn't an intoxicant and is a chemical that is produced in fruits and vegetables. The fructose from an apple is identical to the fructose from corn or sucrose for that matter. Is that fructose bad for your liver?

    And the liver does all kinds of other things

    http://www.mamashealth.com/organs/liver.asp

    The liver has many functions. Some of the functions are: to produce substances that break down fats, convert glucose to glycogen, produce urea (the main substance of urine), make certain amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), filter harmful substances from the blood (such as alcohol), storage of vitamins and minerals (vitamins A, D, K and B12) and maintain a proper level or glucose in the blood. The liver is also responsible for producing cholesterol. It produces about 80% of the cholesterol in your body.
    Here's something else that occurs in the liver

    http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...cogenesis.html

    Gluconeogenesis occurs mainly in the liver with a small amount also occurring in the cortex of the kidney. Very little gluconeogenesis occurs in the brain, skeletal muscles, heart muscles or other body tissue. In fact, these organs have a high demand for glucose. Therefore, gluconeogenesis is constantly occurring in the liver to maintain the glucose level in the blood to meet these demands.
    Are all of those equally as bad as fructose and ethanol because they occur in the liver as well? Gluconeogenesis is the process of producing glucose from noncarbohydrate substances. Glycogenesis occurs mostly in the liver so does that make glucose bad as well? Whatcha gonna live on?

    Consuming 3000 grams of brown rice or consuming 3000g of fructose a day won't kill you immediately. Yes there would be consequences but you won't fall over dead after consuming them. Consume 3000g of grain alcohol (95%) a day and you're going to be a hurt unit! 3000g of grain alcohol is equal to 158 18ml (22g) shots. Depending on the weight of the individual, 10 to 15 at one sitting would be enough to kill you.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    To give you an idea of how lazy cycommute was in "analyzing" Lustig's work and concluding that because fructose ends as glycogen it doesn't matter that it passes through the liver on the way:-



    Whether Lustig is right or wrong, it is this passage through the liver that is the key claim. The messed up insulin response triggers - according to Lustig - abnormal fat storage and by-passes the body's normal satiation triggers.

    I.e. cycocommute has misunderstood literally everything - except that the liver, alcohol, and fructose were mentioned!

    Best overview I could find:

    http://www.ucsf.edu/science-cafe/art...se-sugar-diet/
    Cool. Let's quote from someone who doesn't seem to understand the chemistry of ethanol and fructose metabolism and how they are different to prove the point that ethanol and fructose metabolism are exactly the same and both are highly toxic poisons. That's classy

    On the same page, Lustig also states

    Maple syrup and honey are just glucose. While caloric and insulin generating (therefore obesogenic), they don’t have fructose to damage the liver and promote insulin resistance. So, although not perfect, they would be better than sucrose.
    Yea, right The main sugar in maple syrup is sucrose...68% of the mixture while the next highest constituent is water. The main sugar in honey is levulose...up to 44%. Know another name for levulose? Fructose! Lustig is blowing smoke out his wazoo! To put it impolitely, the man doesn't know ****!

    As for meanwhile, well...he believes the good Dr. Lustig and that I can't look stuff up. Maybe he believes in the Easter Bunny too I don't think he believes in SCIENCE!
    Last edited by cyccommute; 12-28-09 at 04:25 PM.
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  18. #18
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Fly View Post
    Ridicule! Good tactic!
    He deserves it. See my above post for why.
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  19. #19
    zpl
    zpl is offline
    Bike Fun Fanatic zpl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    2008 Salsa Casseroll, 2012 Surly Disc Trucker
    Posts
    619
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm sorry to see this thread become so contentious. I felt it was important to share it because, in my life, it became a tipping point that has changed (and will continue to change) my willingness to eat HFCS in the quantities that I have been consuming. This change is positive, and I hope it might inspire positive change in others too.

    I'm surprised no one has brought up the research mentioned toward the end of the presentation where HFCS drinks were isolated as a major factor in the success of weight loss programs in children. This suggests that even if some detail about fructose metabolism in the presentation was incorrect, that there is still something going on that those of us trying to lose weight and eliminate obesity need to take into consideration.

    The controversial claim the presenter makes is that the way fructose is processed by the liver is analagous to ethanol (a widely accepted poison, carbohydrate or not), and due to these similarities can also be considered a poison in the quantities we consume it in as a food ingredient (e.g, HFCS drinks and processed foods). Whether this assertion is correct or not, I think there are plenty of other useful points to gain from this presentation.

    Scott

  20. #20
    RT
    RT is offline
    The Weird Beard RT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    COS
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now, I'm no scientist, but can't we all just moderate our diets (assuming normal body chemistry) to take in reasonable amounts of all things? My weight ballooned to 240 by eating a pound of bacon three nights a week after drinking beer for four hours while sitting on my ass watching hockey. I still watch hockey, and I still eat bacon, but only about once a week, and only a couple strips at a time. I drink maybe once a month, and the amount is moderate.

    That being said, I got on my bike during this dietary evolution, and I'm down to 180 (hoping to retain honorary Clyde status). I also love chocolate, and I love pizza, but again, I moderate. The change in my head lead to the change in my body. Isn't the solution just to decide to consume less of that which ails you?

    Not trying to start something in the midst of another contentious thread, just thought it was worth mentioning.

  21. #21
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,435
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Toddorado View Post
    Now, I'm no scientist, but can't we all just moderate our diets (assuming normal body chemistry) to take in reasonable amounts of all things? My weight ballooned to 240 by eating a pound of bacon three nights a week after drinking beer for four hours while sitting on my ass watching hockey. I still watch hockey, and I still eat bacon, but only about once a week, and only a couple strips at a time. I drink maybe once a month, and the amount is moderate.

    That being said, I got on my bike during this dietary evolution, and I'm down to 180 (hoping to retain honorary Clyde status). I also love chocolate, and I love pizza, but again, I moderate. The change in my head lead to the change in my body. Isn't the solution just to decide to consume less of that which ails you?

    Not trying to start something in the midst of another contentious thread, just thought it was worth mentioning.
    I agree, a little corn syrup isn't going to kill you or even make you fat. (and I believe that cyclocommute said pretty much the same thing in his first post in the thread) I don't trust any sources that say you should absolutely avoid a certain substance that's regarded as a safe food.

    I would add that absolutely avoiding HFCS in our culture is pretty difficult and could be more frustrating than it's worth. But there's also the problem with sweets that the more I eat, the more I want. It's almost easier to give it up than to eat it in moderation! But I'm not going to extremes, like avoiding ketchup just because it has corn syrup in it.


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  22. #22
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zpl View Post
    I'm sorry to see this thread become so contentious. I felt it was important to share it because, in my life, it became a tipping point that has changed (and will continue to change) my willingness to eat HFCS in the quantities that I have been consuming. This change is positive, and I hope it might inspire positive change in others too.
    I agree with you. Please note that in my posts I have said that the amount of fructose...and, for that matter, glucose and sucrose...consumed is the problem. The sugar itself is not a problem but the quantities that we consume is.


    Quote Originally Posted by zpl View Post
    I'm surprised no one has brought up the research mentioned toward the end of the presentation where HFCS drinks were isolated as a major factor in the success of weight loss programs in children. This suggests that even if some detail about fructose metabolism in the presentation was incorrect, that there is still something going on that those of us trying to lose weight and eliminate obesity need to take into consideration.
    Again, it is the quantities that we consume. A quick glance around at simple carbohydrate intake for the US gives numbers of around 15% of our total caloric intake per day is simple carbohydrates, i.e. sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc. (there are a whole host of other sugars). That's simply too much.

    And don't forget that high fructose corn syrup isn't just fructose. It's about half glucose. Our bodies do an excellent job of storing calories...our ancestors were selected specifically for their ability to survive by storing calories against lean times. We're just waiting for the next starvation cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by zpl View Post
    The controversial claim the presenter makes is that the way fructose is processed by the liver is analogous to ethanol (a widely accepted poison, carbohydrate or not), and due to these similarities can also be considered a poison in the quantities we consume it in as a food ingredient (e.g, HFCS drinks and processed foods). Whether this assertion is correct or not, I think there are plenty of other useful points to gain from this presentation.
    And his claim is based on faulty science. Dr. Lustig is ignoring, or not understanding, that every other carbohydrate is also processed through the liver...mostly. Glucose may be directly processed by the muscles to glycogen but that is only in small amounts. The bulk of the glucose that your body takes in...in simple carbohydrates or in complex ones...is processed through the liver. The process of converting glucose to glycogen and fructose or lactose (glucose/galactose) or sucrose (glucose/fructose) to glycogen are the same with minor differences in the details.

    The processing of ethanol through the liver is entirely different with very different enzymes, different steps, different intermediates and different outcomes. Just because the process occurs in the liver and is toxic to it, doesn't mean that you can jump to the conclusion that anything that any process that happens in the liver is toxic. It's not a logically valid conclusion.

    There is also the issue of the good Dr Lustig stating that honey and maple syrup are just fine as sweeteners because they contain only glucose. This is absolutely wrong. Maple syrup is almost entirely sucrose. Consuming massive quantities of it would be exactly that same...and as bad for you...as drinking a soda sweetened with sugar. Honey, on the other hand, should be considered the same as high fructose corn syrup but with a little bit of bee spit in it Consuming massive quantities of it would have the same effect as drinking HFCS.

    In the end, it all comes down to quantity of consumption. Back in the Good Ol' Days, a large Coke was a 16 oz. I can remember the days when a Coke was 10 oz (the little novelty bottles you can still find). Now a small soda is 16 oz and a regular size is 32 to 44 oz. A 12 oz Coke has 39g of carbohydrate and 140 calories. That's 7% of a 2000 calorie per day diet. A 44 oz Big Glup has 3.7 times the carbohydrates and calories...143g and 513 calories, respectively. That's 25% of a 2000 calorie per day diet. Downing one 12 oz Coke per day isn't going to do much harm. Downing 3 per day isn't going to do you much good. But down 1, 2 or 3 Big Glups per day
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  23. #23
    Mad bike riding scientist cyccommute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Some silver ones, a black one, a red one, an orange one and a couple of titanium ones
    Posts
    15,413
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    I agree, a little corn syrup isn't going to kill you or even make you fat. (and I believe that cyclocommute said pretty much the same thing in his first post in the thread) I don't trust any sources that say you should absolutely avoid a certain substance that's regarded as a safe food.

    I would add that absolutely avoiding HFCS in our culture is pretty difficult and could be more frustrating than it's worth. But there's also the problem with sweets that the more I eat, the more I want. It's almost easier to give it up than to eat it in moderation! But I'm not going to extremes, like avoiding ketchup just because it has corn syrup in it.
    Well...and succinctly...said
    Stuart Black
    Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
    Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
    Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
    Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
    An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    121
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    *Disclaimer* I only have a High school education

    I hope I'm correct in my understanding that different "sweets" effect our brains in a different manner. If "we [our brains] want sugar" we need to give it sugar. Giving it a sweetener [sugar substitute] doesn't let our brain know we've had 'sugar' and it still wants sugar because the fake sugar impacts a different part of the brain then real sugar does..

    Clear as mud.....yes?..... but perhaps I've had too much sugar.
    Last edited by Go dog Go; 12-29-09 at 12:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •