Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
It's a really good read, just skip over the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs from the end. Which have have more of a "Current Events" feel to them. Unnecessarily, I might add. It's like a bad ending to an otherwise good movie: It threatens to ruin the whole thing.
Ironically, one of Lou's strongest points is that science need not or should not be politicized. Then he does just that for two paragraphs...
I dont like how people word the arguement: "Fructose isn't bad but the fructose found in HFCS is". WTF?! what is different about it? It is molecurly the same and HFCS contains as much fructose as table sugar.
The problem is that HFCS in pop lets a person get like 60+ grams of fructose at once. HFCS used in the small quantities wouldnt be any worse then surcrose imho.
I don't know that it is the same, molecularly. I'm not a chemist, but how molecular bonding occurs can play a part in how something is metabolised. When they say they are just fructose and glucose, just like table sugar, I have my doubts about them being "the same."
It could be just too much of it, readily available, too.
The problem is that pop is evil.. lol jk seriously though pop is a bad choice, liquid calories that leech the calcium from your bones.. Rott your guts, think about the uses for coke- hmmm clean the blood off the road after a big MVC, pour it on your windsheild and let it eat away the crap off it.; and ppl drink that stuff. yikes I am worried about the over all effects that the garbage ppl shovel into their months has..
LOL LD pop is evil, and diet pop is barf in a can yuk!!! seriously I am really saddened by the way ppl are treating their bodies.. Day in and day out I pick up over weight ppl that are dieing horrible deaths due in a huge part to the way they eat. ok lifting ppl that are 300lbs plus is a great workout for me but god how they suffer; MI's, CHF, COPD to name just a few- not a pretty way to die, very slow and painful, and very very scary..
I hear Coke Zero and Diet Coke with Splenda (yes, that's the actual name) are pretty good. Diet Coke with Splenda tastes EXACTLY like regular Coke to me. I don't like it at all. I don't like the feeling that Coke leaves in my mouth. Diet Coke with Splenda does that, too.
I grew up with only diet sodas (Mom was diabetic). I prefer the taste of them to regular ones.
I believe that a diet too low in veggies and fruits, while too high in starchy, grainy carbs, leads to blood acidosis, which causes the calcium leaching. Not the sodas, which can contibute, but only play a smaller role.
LD there are chemicals in the sodas that leech the calcium out of the bones.. I can't recall at the moment but I believe it has something to do with the carbonation and such.. so that would include the evil diet pop too.. ps I never drink pop if I can help it.. its all evil lol [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
This sweetener also doesn't spur production of insulin to make the body "process" calories, nor does it spur leptin, a substance that tamps down appetite, as other carbohydrates do, explained Dr. George Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La.
[/ QUOTE ]
What he forgets to mention is that since fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars (obviously pending on who youre listening to).
End result = no difference
Macronutrient disposal during controlled overfeeding with glucose, fructose, sucrose, or fat in lean and obese women.
Medical Research Council Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. r.mcdevitt@au.sac.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Previous short-term studies (< or =6 h) showed differences in energy expenditure (EE) and macronutrient oxidation in response to overfeeding with different types of dietary carbohydrate. This finding could have implications for obesity. OBJECTIVE: We used 96-h continuous whole-body calorimetry in 8 lean and 5 obese women to assess metabolic disposal (energy dissipation and glycogen or fat storage) of a controlled excess of dietary energy supplied as different carbohydrate sources or as fat. DESIGN: Five dietary treatments were applied in random order: energy balance (control) and overfeeding by 50% of energy requirements with fat (O(fat)) or predominantly with glucose, fructose, or sucrose (O(cho)). Macronutrient oxidation rates were assessed from nonprotein gaseous exchanges. Net macronutrient balances were calculated as cumulative differences between intake and oxidation. RESULTS: Increased EE in response to overfeeding dissipated 7.9% of the energy excess with a variation in EE of <1.7% across overfeeding treatments (NS). EE during the O(fat) treatment significantly exceeded that during the control treatment in the lean but not in the obese women. There were no significant differences between lean and obese women in macronutrient oxidation or balances, so data were pooled. O(cho) induced glycogen storage on day 1 ( approximately 100 g) but thereafter progressively stimulated carbohydrate oxidation so that balance was reached on days 3 and 4. Fat oxidation was proportionately suppressed. Of the excess carbohydrate, 74% was oxidized; there were no significant differences between the various O(cho) treatments. O(fat) stimulated fat oxidation by 18% and suppressed carbohydrate oxidation. On average, 12% of the excess energy was stored as glycogen and 88% as fat; there was no significant difference between overfeeding treatments. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.
__________________
[ QUOTE ]
"There's a lack of fullness or satiety. The brain just seems to add it on," said Dr. Louis Aronne, a Weill-Cornell Medical College doctor who is president of the Obesity Society.
Two studies by Penn State nutritionist Barbara Rolls illustrate this. One gave 14 men lemonade, diet lemonade, water or no drink and then allowed them to eat as much as they wanted at lunch. Food intake didn't vary, no matter what they drank.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do we really have to go over the flaws of this approach?
[ QUOTE ]
Then there is the "jelly bean study." Purdue University researchers gave 15 men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers did not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Alright so you give someone jellybeans or soda in the amount of 450 cals, then let them do whatever they normally do in a diet without controlling for those calories or the type of individual, or activity levels? Holy quantum leaps batman!
[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
*slowly backing out of this topic* I think I unleashed a beast sorry guys.. btw love spinach yummm, question though LD how does cheese leech the calcium from your bones???
[ QUOTE ]
*slowly backing out of this topic* I think I unleashed a beast sorry guys.. btw love spinach yummm, question though LD how does cheese leech the calcium from your bones???
[/ QUOTE ]
Back in the day, people were saying that carbonation "trapped" fat and caused cellulite. The argument kinda went like this:
Carbonation makes drinks bubbly.
Cellulite makes your butt look bubbly.
Thus, carbonation = cellulite. Thus Jennmedic does not have a bubbly ass [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Im curious as to how coke leeches calcium out of your bones (and btw Im not being mean in any of my posts, just a little sarcastic and humorous [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )
oohhh god I can't remember I'll look it up after my exams tomorrow.. I have it here somewhere, just got trauma and cardic prob's on the brain right now .. sorry
I've gotta say, the "Raspberry Newtons Defense" is pure genius.
I do agree to an extent with the financial disparity question, which he goes into further in earlier entries. I honestly worry about if I am going to be able to financially support a "healthy" lifestyle after college with the amount of fruits & vegetables etc. I eat each day alone. Subsidizing the purchase of fruits & veggies could do a lot to alleviate this problem.
[ QUOTE ]
Two studies by Penn State nutritionist Barbara Rolls illustrate this. One gave 14 men lemonade, diet lemonade, water or no drink and then allowed them to eat as much as they wanted at lunch. Food intake didn't vary, no matter what they drank.
The second study gave 44 women water, diet soda, regular soda, orange juice, milk or no drink before lunch. Total intake was 104 calories greater for those given caloric beverages than those given diet soda, water or no beverage. Caloric drinks didn't help women feel any fuller either.
Then there is the "jelly bean study." Purdue University researchers gave 15 men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers did not.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get how any of those examples suggest that there is a difference between HFCS and sugar. They prove pretty conclusively that drinking your calories has a different effect on satiety than eating them, but nothing about whether the lemonade/soda would have any different effect if it were made with sucrose instead of HFCS.
I think Lou's conclusion that "soda makes you fat" is right on the money, but the same amount of soda would still make you fat whether it was made with HFCS or sucrose.
Regarding molecular structure, there is a difference. HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides (glucose and fructose), while sucrose is a disaccharide with a glucose and fructose unit covalently bonded together. As I understand it, this bond is cleaved pretty early in the digestion process by enzymes in the intestine.
Why are we fatter? Is it because HFCS is evil? I don't believe that. I believe it has to do with amount consumed.
I remeber when McDonalds brought out their large drink when I was a kid. IT WAS HUGE! It is now their medium.
I remeber bottles of pop being 250ml. Now? 591ml is the typical small size with 1 litre drinks being the same size.
I didn't have a 7-11 when I was growing up, but I have to assume their "big gulp" was there biggest size and now we have extra biggulps and double gulps. Slurpee sizes have also increased a huge amount.
HFCS and like products have allowed companies to make more money on the sugary crap they sell.
I am sure if you compared sugar concumption of us now to us of 30 years ago, you would see a HUGE difference.
As we have evolved as a society, we spend more time sitting doing very little and to compensate for this lower caloric need we have created new cheaper ways to feed people fast digesting calories. We do less and eat more. That is the problem.
HFCS maybe made it possible due to cost, but really it is just one piece of the pie IMHO.
I'll have to say, right off the bat, that I can't find the study for this. Maybe someone else has a link...
I once read the abstract of a study on satiety that compared drinking soda with sugar vs soda with HFCS. The people were given unlimited amounts of the drinks. As much as they liked. The HFCS group drank A LOT more. The sugar group felt full relatively quickly and stopped drinking it after a serving or so.
In the article, it mentioned that "in the oldin' days" people just COULDN'T drink a lot of soda: They'd feel sick if they forced themselves to drink after they felt "full."
Also, think of the old cartoons and tv shows where the kid would drink a ton of soda and turn green with queeziness. Did they really feel that way after too much soda? They don't now...
[ QUOTE ]
LD there are chemicals in the sodas that leech the calcium out of the bones.. I can't recall at the moment but I believe it has something to do with the carbonation and such.. so that would include the evil diet pop too.. ps I never drink pop if I can help it.. its all evil lol [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it might be phosphorus that you're thinking of. I remember reading that excessive phosphorus weakens bones, but I can't find the source and I don't recall if it was a truly scientific study or someone being strongly opinionated.
HFCS debate...
Linear Mode
