The Frutarian - eat nothing but fruit for 6 years

[Necrosis]

 I wonder from where "Necrosis" thinks we should get our energy to fuel our physiological processes then. Carbohydrates and especially monosaccharides are the most efficient energy source there is by far. Glucose is the only fuel for the brain under ordinary circumstances and it is the only fuel that can be used instantly by all cells of the body to release energy in a one-step reaction. The only other fuel for the body besides glucose are ketones. So from where should we get our primary fuel from according to "Necrosis"? There are only three options here:

  - We get glucose directly from food via carbohydrates.

  - We get glucose indirectly by converting protein or fat into glucose by gluconeogenesis in the liver.

  - We get ketones by breaking down fat in the liver via ketogenesis.

  These are the only three options. There are no other. So since "Necrosis" claims that monosaccharides are poisons, then is he suggesting we should live in a state of constant gluconeogenesis, which puts enormous stress in the liver and generates enormous amounts of ammonia and uric acid, both of which are toxic, as byproducts? Should we cut carbs completely and live on ketones which are even more toxic than ammonia and far less efficient as an energy source than glucose? I would like an honest answer to these questions.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

LOL epic strawman where did i claim that monosaccharides are poisons? i didn't realize monosaccharides=fructose. Fruit is fine, carbs are fine, glucose is fine, eating a diet high in fructose is not, its not black and white and this epic strawman and putting words in my mouth is childish at best and dishonest when you know the difference.

gluconeogenesis and glycolysis are constantly in action, they do not put enormous stress on the liver, Uric acid is a by-product of purine metabolism so you clearly don't have a solid understanding of gluconeogenesis as it is an endergonic action. Uric acid is not the by-product of gluconeogenesis (it is much more prominent in protein metabolism) and in fact high sugar diets increase uric acid.

GUESS what

^ Cirillo P, Sato W, Reungjui S, et al. (December 2006). "Uric acid, the metabolic syndrome, and renal disease". J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 17 (12 Suppl 3): S165–8.

this paper already presented by me which you clearly didnt look at shows that fructose induces high levels of uric acid and increases gout occurence and severity. So if you are concerned about gout, and uric acid and renal health pehaps you should follow your advice.

Then you make my position seem as if i said carbohydrates are bad here.

"Should we cut carbs completely and live on ketones which are even more toxic than ammonia and far less efficient as an energy source than glucose? I would like an honest answer to these questions."

which is another strawman and something one would use when losing the argument, which is clear you are. Basically you are stating that i claim monosaccharides are bad because fructose is not healthy, then you make a more grandious claim that the only option is to avoid carbs all together. Fructose is fine to consume in mild to moderate doses ive said this over and over, eating only fruit is not good and claiming that fructose dramatically lowers blood glucose levels is false, flat out false.


Im such a fucking boss though aren't i? come on admit it im sexy as all hell

[tbombz]

Jared Leto's nose is too small to be considered handsome which makes him an ugly fuck he looks like a girl. Look.. you can have the prettiest face in the world I have said it a million times, but you need a masculine nose or you will never get respect in this world. Which sucks for a guy like you who has otherwise perfect features, but was unfortunately born with an upturned nose of a 12 year old who hasn't hit puberty. Nothing wrong with it, you look like Matt Damon. But at the same time Matt Damon looks like a pretty boy pussy. Which works for 18 years old I suppose, but will he ever have that "character" of a Gunter? Fuck no!

btw No I dont mean a nose like Johnnynoname thats a ugly nose, I mean a nose like myself and  Gunter=STUDLY
big nose= high testosterone..it's universally attractive to every woman just like large jaws, thick eyebrows, broad shoulders, and big muscles.

  you are exaggerating a bit. some women really do like more effeminate looking guys, in addition to liking masculin looking guys. pretty boys get tons of ass as long as they have a personality. when you look like me, like a "pretty boy pussy" (lmao), its much more straight guys who have the negative attitude towards it.  females arent as concerned with men appearing "hard" as much as you might think. they do, just not to the extent which guys do. you wont find the average bloke hanging out with pretty boys cuz he thinks their fa g g ish, but most women actually really like pretty boys. like jared leto, his nose is really ugly to me and you... to most women.. eh.. not that bad. just not optimal. and hes still good looking. so he can easily pull 7's and 8's with a good p[ersonality even if he was dirt poor and nobody knew him.  

 my nose is on the border line. its just very slightly upturned, and theres no upwards curvature to the brim of it, unlike leto's. the ski slope nose is the worst. lol.

[andreisdaman]

Bump for later

[SilverSpoon]

I find it interesting that there is one supplement company, Healthy 'N Fit, that uses Fructose as a sugar source in their products.
I do not use their products, but have known a couple of people that swear by them, specifically their Muscular Weight Gain product.
Years ago, Rheo Blair had a special protein that he made (never released to public) that was called the High Fructose Protein, that was meant to be a weight gainer, that was allegedly a favorite of Frank Zane.

[Necrosis]

I find it interesting that there is one supplement company, Healthy 'N Fit, that uses Fructose as a sugar source in their products.
I do not use their products, but have known a couple of people that swear by them, specifically their Muscular Weight Gain product.
Years ago, Rheo Blair had a special protein that he made (never released to public) that was called the High Fructose Protein, that was meant to be a weight gainer, that was allegedly a favorite of Frank Zane.

oh you will gain weight, you see fructose is only utilized by the liver via the glut5 receptor, unlike glucose which is utilized by the liver/muscle via glut 4. Once liver glycogen is full excess fructose is shunted towards lipogenesis/fat storage.

fructose would be good in the morning as liver glycogen is depleted or when on low carb diets to keep the body in a fed state, sparring muscle glycogen.

[Necrosis]

.

  Because it is the only way to determine if fructose per se increases plasma triglycerides and induces insulin resistence. This is called the scientific method, where you control for extrinsic variables to establish a cause-and-effect link between cause A and effect B. I was never suggesting a 100% fructose diet. Get real, dude.

 

you did ask for a 100% fructose diet here just for the record. This is a beating sucky, come hither. I do enjoy a good debate with you though.

" I want to see a double-blind, placebo controlled  study where, when controlled for calories, a person on a 100% fructose diet showing greater levels of plasma triglycerides and their metabolites than a person on a diet of 100% glucose, or 100% protein or 100% fat."

[suckmymuscle]

no it doesn't.
well only in ten type 2 diabetics with no other controls for food, which is one of your issues apparently yet you do not claim this as a flaw in your study.

  Controls are not needed in this case because one diet did not contain glucose at all, hence any change in blood glucose profile could only possibly be caused by the fructose. Controls are needed when the proportions of nutritional susbstrates in different studies are both in different proportions, but not when one of the substrates is equal as in this case as the variations can only be explained by changes in the other substrate.

Also, you made no claims about type 2 diabetes, you claimed that fructose lowers hyperglycemic events via GK priming, which is not true as this effect is only seen in type 2 diabetics, of which the study was small and poor. nor does the study prove your claim that fructose dramatically lowers blood glucose levels, in every study in healthy individuals it worsens it, you have yet to show it in healthy people, while i have.

  Does it seem like a substance that improves blood sugar in diabetics would indude insulin resistence, genius? And of course I cna use diabetics since they are far more sensitive to alterations in blood glucose levels than non-diabetics.

i understand the scientific method, what are you proposing then? there have been double blind placebo controlled cross over trials, im not sure what your issue is with them. You claimed that you wanted to see a study with 100% fructose diet, i took you literally, didnt realize you were using hyperbole.

  I am still waiting for a study where controls are placed for all nutritional substrates in humans.

i know what lipogenic means, you said liopenic hence my confusion.  Intuition is likely to get you no where in medicine, does it seem likely that an autoimmune condition could be treated by things that shut the immune function down (glucocorticoids) yet induce autoimmune issues in others? fructose doesn't improve glucose disposal, all the studies in healthy people show this, all of them, even your study showed it did not improve glucose disposal in healthy subjects. Since when did this argument become about one population of disease, and why would i care if i dont have type 2 diabetes? fructose is a metabolic poison.

  Diabetics are better to determine the effects of fructose in blood glucose levels as they have compromised glucose-processing ability, hence variations in their blood glucose levels occur more dramatically than a normal subject which would allow you to detect the effects of particular monosaccharides like glucose and fructose more accurately. All the studies you posted, massive amounts of calories were consumed. In the controls where more fructose was utilized, more calories were also eaten. Then how can you attribute this to the fructose? You need to control for calories, then all other nutritional substrates to see the paricular effect of fructose.

i dont know why i have to post study after study to prove my point only to have to argue it again, its right here, its in all the studies ive posted fructose is shit for humans. People with osteoarthritis should avoid solane containing foods, normal people have no problem with them, lactose intolerant people have issues with lactose, other without it do not. If i claimed that lactose causes diarhhea and is bad for health would you accept a study on only lactose intolerant people? no you would not, and that is what you have done while i have posted studies in both populations, studies actually contradict your study and have more statistical power, that study is shit all around.

  This analogy is terrible. So you are saying that fructose is to normal people like lactose is to people with lactose intolerance, but diabetics somehow are immune to the deleterious health effects of fructose? I am sorry, but if I understood correctly, your point is ridiculous unless you post any evidence of it.

Br J Nutr. 2008 Nov;100(5):947-52.
Consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks increases postprandial triacylglycerol and apolipoprotein-B concentrations in overweight and obese women.
Swarbrick MM, Stanhope KL, Elliott SS, Graham JL, Krauss RM, Christiansen MP, Griffen SC, Keim NL, Havel PJ.
Source
Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Abstract
Fructose consumption in the USA has increased over the past three decades. During this time, obesity, insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome have also increased in prevalence. While diets high in fructose have been shown to promote insulin resistance and increase TAG concentrations in animals, there are insufficient data available regarding the long-term metabolic effects of fructose consumption in humans. The objective of the present study was to investigate the metabolic effects of 10-week consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages in human subjects under energy-balanced conditions in a controlled research setting. Following a 4-week weight-maintaining complex carbohydrate diet, seven overweight or obese (BMI 26.8-33.3 kg/m2) postmenopausal women were fed an isoenergetic intervention diet, which included a fructose-sweetened beverage with each meal, for 10 weeks. The intervention diet provided 15 % of energy from protein, 30 % from fat and 55 % from carbohydrate (30 % complex carbohydrate, 25 % fructose). Fasting and postprandial glucose, insulin, TAG and apoB concentrations were measured. Fructose consumption increased fasting glucose concentrations and decreased meal-associated glucose and insulin responses (P = 0.0002, P = 0.007 and P = 0.013, respectively). Moreover, after 10 weeks of fructose consumption, 14 h postprandial TAG profiles were significantly increased, with the area under the curve at 10 weeks being 141 % higher than at baseline (P = 0.04). Fructose also increased fasting apoB concentrations by 19 % (P = 0.043 v. baseline). In summary, consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages increased postprandial TAG and fasting apoB concentrations, and the present results suggest that long-term consumption of diets high in fructose could lead to an increased risk of CVD.

  Was this study controlled for what they were eating before the study? Because since all control groups were fed the same diet, then the increase in plasma triglycerides means nothing as you are comparing "X" to "X". They could have been eating more fructose before the study and the increase in plasma glycerols came concomitant to a decrease in fructose ingestion. This study is worthless.

HERES MOAR

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Mar;1190:15-24.
Fructose consumption: recent results and their potential implications.
Stanhope KL, Havel PJ.
Source
Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA.
Abstract
In addition to acquiring a better understanding of foods that may have intrinsic health benefits, increasing our knowledge of dietary components that may adversely impact health and wellness, and the levels of consumption at which these adverse effects may occur, should also be an important priority for the Foods for Health initiative. This review discusses the evidence that additional research is needed to determine the adverse effects of consuming added sugars containing fructose. Current guidelines recommend limiting sugar consumption in order to prevent weight gain and promote nutritional adequacy. However, recent data suggest that fructose consumption in human results in increased visceral adiposity, lipid dysregulation, and decreased insulin sensitivity, all of which have been associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. A proposed model for the differential effects of fructose and glucose is presented. The only published study to directly compare the effects of fructose with those of commonly consumed dietary sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup and sucrose, indicates that high fructose corn syrup and sucrose increase postprandial triglycerides comparably to pure fructose. Dose-response studies investigating the metabolic effects of prolonged consumption of fructose by itself, and in combination with glucose, on lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity in both normal weight and overweight/obese subjects are needed.

  This states flat out what I have been saying: high-fructose corn syrup, which is fructose/glucose seems to wosen more blood lipd profile than fructose alone. So what have this proven besides that I am right?

MOAR ON THIS SHIT AFFECTING THE LIVER, it not only induces NAFLD but progresses it if you already have it.

Hepatology. 2010 Jun;51(6):1961-71.
Increased fructose consumption is associated with fibrosis severity in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Abdelmalek MF, Suzuki A, Guy C, Unalp-Arida A, Colvin R, Johnson RJ, Diehl AM; Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network.
Collaborators (111)

Source
Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA. manal.abdelmalek@duke.edu
Abstract
The rising incidence of obesity and diabetes coincides with a marked increase in fructose consumption. Fructose consumption is higher in individuals with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) than in age-matched and body mass index (BMI)-matched controls. Because fructose elicits metabolic perturbations that may be hepatotoxic, we investigated the relationship between fructose consumption and disease severity in NAFLD. We studied 427 adults enrolled in the NASH Clinical Research Network for whom Block food questionnaire data were collected within 3 months of a liver biopsy. Fructose consumption was estimated based on reporting (frequency x amount) of Kool-aid, fruit juices, and nondietary soda intake, expressed as servings per week, and classified into none, minimum to moderate (<7 servings/week), and daily (> or =7 servings/week). The association of fructose intake with metabolic and histological features of NAFLD was analyzed using multiple linear and ordinal logistic regression analyses with and without controlling for other confounding factors. Increased fructose consumption was univariately associated with decreased age (P < 0.0001), male sex (P < 0.0001), hypertriglyceridemia (P < 0.04), low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (<0.0001), decreased serum glucose (P < 0.001), increased calorie intake (P < 0.0001), and hyperuricemia (P < 0.0001). After controlling for age, sex, BMI, and total calorie intake, daily fructose consumption was associated with lower steatosis grade and higher fibrosis stage (P < 0.05 for each). In older adults (age > or = 48 years), daily fructose consumption was associated with increased hepatic inflammation (P < 0.05) and hepatocyte ballooning (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with NAFLD, daily fructose ingestion is associated with reduced hepatic steatosis but increased fibrosis. These results identify a readily modifiable environmental risk factor that may ameliorate disease progression in patients with NAFLD.

  Controlled for age, sex and total caloric intake, but not for all other nutritional substrates in a diet such as protein and fat.

Another in HEALHTY INDIVIDUALS

Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Mar;34(3):454-61. Epub 2009 Dec 22.
Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response.
Perez-Pozo SE, Schold J, Nakagawa T, Sánchez-Lozada LG, Johnson RJ, Lillo JL.
Source
Renal Unit, Son Llatzer Hospital-Palm of Majorca, Balearic Islands, Spain. santose.perez@hsll.es
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Excessive fructose intake causes metabolic syndrome in animals and can be partially prevented by lowering the uric acid level. We tested the hypothesis that fructose might induce features of metabolic syndrome in adult men and whether this is protected by allopurinol.

METHODS:
A randomized, controlled trial of 74 adult men who were administered 200 g fructose daily for 2 weeks with or without allopurinol. Primary measures included changes in ambulatory blood pressure (BP), fasting lipids, glucose and insulin, homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) index, body mass index and criteria for metabolic syndrome.

RESULTS:
The ingestion of fructose resulted in an increase in ambulatory BP (7+/-2 and 5+/-2 mm Hg for systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), P<0.004 and P<0.007, respectively). Mean fasting triglycerides increased by 0.62+/-0.23 mmol l(-1) (55+/-20 mg per 100 ml), whereas high-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased by 0.06+/-0.02 mmol l(-1) (2.5+/-0.7 mg per 100 ml), P<0.002 and P<0.001, respectively. Fasting insulin and HOMA indices increased significantly, whereas plasma glucose level did not change. All liver function tests showed an increase in values. The metabolic syndrome increased by 25-33% depending on the criteria. Allopurinol lowered the serum uric acid level (P<0.0001) and prevented the increase in 24-h ambulatory DBP and daytime SBP and DBP. Allopurinol treatment did not reduce HOMA or fasting plasma triglyceride levels, but lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol relative to control (P<0.02) and also prevented the increase in newly diagnosed metabolic syndrome (0-2%, P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS:
High doses of fructose raise the BP and cause the features of metabolic syndrome. Lowering the uric acid level prevents the increase in mean arterial blood pressure. Excessive intake of fructose may have a role in the current epidemics of obesity and diabete

  200 grams of fructose. No variations in fructose consumption between the groups. So how do you know that they weren't consuming more fructose than this before the study began?

I MEAN I REST MY CASE.

  No, those studies were either poorly controlled or well controlled but without variations in fructose ingestion levels between the individuals who took part on it, so they don't count. This is a better study. It was done on rats, but it was very well controlled. It shows that fructose increases total cholesterol(LDL and HDL) on all control groups, but that in small doses the increase in HDL was much greater than the increase in LDL. Whether very high levels of fructose are detrimental or not remains to be seen: in very high levels, it boosts LDL, but also causes modest but significant increases in HDL. The cost/benefit of such ingestion on cardiovascular health remains to be seen. Funny that chimpanzees are genetically 99.8% similar to us and get 65% of their calories from fruit, and yet I am not aware of any chipanzee that has suffered a myocardial infarction in the wild - and I have read all of Jane Goodal's books.

  http://www.nrjournal.com/article/S0271-5317(04)00048-X/abstract

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[maxkane69]

All this arguing about the safety of fructose is a NONSENSE because there is nothing in nature healthier than fruits and vegetables!
When you ingest fructose directely from eating a whole fruit you will only enhance your health and feel energetic!
Now if you eat a concetrate of fructose in powder form, that could be deleterious for your health because nature predisposed only a certain amount of fructose in each fruit along with other important element found in the whole fruit that work together enhanching the health of his eater!
So the bottom line is:
-eat more fruit and vegetables and you'll be healtier!
-eat only fruit and vegetables and you'll be even healtier!
I myself eat great quantity of fruit and veggies every day and wish I could follow a diet made only on raw fruit and veggies but I love meat too much!
Remember that there has been peoples that have reversed dangerous disease (diabetes, cancer,etc..) once they stopped eating a tipical western diet (rich in dairy,meat and eggs) and started eating a raw vegan diet made only of fruits and veggies!

[aesthetics]

this moron seriously spent what amounted to 4 hours total of his life arguing that eating fruit is bad for you, lol

[Necrosis]

All this arguing about the safety of fructose is a NONSENSE because there is nothing in nature healthier than fruits and vegetables!
When you ingest fructose directely from eating a whole fruit you will only enhance your health and feel energetic!
Now if you eat a concetrate of fructose in powder form, that could be deleterious for your health because nature predisposed only a certain amount of fructose in each fruit along with other important element found in the whole fruit that work together enhanching the health of his eater!
So the bottom line is:
-eat more fruit and vegetables and you'll be healtier!
-eat only fruit and vegetables and you'll be even healtier!
I myself eat great quantity of fruit and veggies every day and wish I could follow a diet made only on raw fruit and veggies but I love meat too much!
Remember that there has been peoples that have reversed dangerous disease (diabetes, cancer,etc..) once they stopped eating a tipical western diet (rich in dairy,meat and eggs) and started eating a raw vegan diet made only of fruits and veggies!

fruit is good for you yup

this moron seriously spent what amounted to 4 hours total of his life arguing that eating fruit is bad for you, lol

where did i say fruit was bad lol, i swear some people on this site are braindead.

All this arguing about the safety of fructose is a NONSENSE because there is nothing in nature healthier than fruits and vegetables!
When you ingest fructose directely from eating a whole fruit you will only enhance your health and feel energetic!
Now if you eat a concetrate of fructose in powder form, that could be deleterious for your health because nature predisposed only a certain amount of fructose in each fruit along with other important element found in the whole fruit that work together enhanching the health of his eater!
So the bottom line is:
-eat more fruit and vegetables and you'll be healtier!
-eat only fruit and vegetables and you'll be even healtier!
I myself eat great quantity of fruit and veggies every day and wish I could follow a diet made only on raw fruit and veggies but I love meat too much!
Remember that there has been peoples that have reversed dangerous disease (diabetes, cancer,etc..) once they stopped eating a tipical western diet (rich in dairy,meat and eggs) and started eating a raw vegan diet made only of fruits and veggies!

you are ridiculous, i agree with what you are saying but the manner in which you are saying it is absurb. Nature predisposed a certain amount of fructose? nature has no end goal and im sure an apple never had it's sweetness taken into account to please you.

there is no point in continuing this argument, fructose has been shown to have numerous deleterious effects, there are literally dozens of studies showing this. What impact high fructose has if one were to consume all fruits is unknown, i would suspect fruit would improve or eliminate many of the negative effects, namely because of the fiber and phytochemicals.

[Necrosis]

 Controls are not needed in this case because one diet did not contain glucose at all, hence any change in blood glucose profile could only possibly be caused by the fructose. Controls are needed when the proportions of nutritional susbstrates in different studies are both in different proportions, but not when one of the substrates is equal as in this case as the variations can only be explained by changes in the other substrate.

 
  http://www.nrjournal.com/article/S0271-5317(04)00048-X/abstract

SUCKMYMUSCLE

controls are not needed? lol werent you asking for a double blind study with ridiculous controls in order to prove my point yet your position requires only this shitty study with no controls to pass as evidence. Also, the study showed that the fructose did nothing for the healthy CONTROLS, hence it doesn't matter what you think should happen, ie fructose should help healthy people because it helped type 2 diabetics, because it doesn't and this study agrees with me.

  Does it seem like a substance that improves blood sugar in diabetics would indude insulin resistence, genius? And of course I cna use diabetics since they are far more sensitive to alterations in blood glucose levels than non-diabetics.

why do you keep appealing to emotion, it doesnt matter what intuition tells you it simply isn't so in medicine. Yes drugs that improve insulin control and blood sugar regulation can induce insulin resistence over time. But that doesn't matter, if it were the case no studies would show fructose worsening glucose regulation and your study would have shown the controls also improving, which it did not. So it does seem like yes in fact fructose does what your quote above states.

 

  Diabetics are better to determine the effects of fructose in blood glucose levels as they have compromised glucose-processing ability, hence variations in their blood glucose levels occur more dramatically than a normal subject which would allow you to detect the effects of particular monosaccharides like glucose and fructose more accurately. All the studies you posted, massive amounts of calories were consumed. In the controls where more fructose was utilized, more calories were also eaten. Then how can you attribute this to the fructose? You need to control for calories, then all other nutritional substrates to see the paricular effect of fructose.

 

what? what type of diabetes? so what about type 1 do we use those people to show that fructose improves glucose control? since the beta cells of the pancreas are being destroyed i would imagine you would have far different results they type 2 and then type 2 to normal individuals. You claimed fructose dramatically lowers blood sugar, it doesnt, i also dont think anyone assumed you were referring to type 2 diabetics exclusively. It's called the weight of the data, they have both in vitro and vivo studies on animals and humans showing fructose does the opposite of what you claimed.

so do you think type 1 diabetics are the best population to observe the effects of fructose on blood sugar, do you think that would give us an accurate picture we could extrapolate to the larger population? give me a break its as if you have done no science at all dude, why the hell would you use sick people with abnormal glucose regulation to examine the effects something has on an ubiquitous process. Its like examining the effect of smoking on someone with lung cancer versus normal controls, or in people with COPD versus normal controls. Of course it will be different the tissue is diseased as in no longer functioning normally, the histology is different completely it's silly and completely useless to draw any meaningful conclusions except for the populations studied. This is basic science, it's smack you in the face common sense.

 
  This analogy is terrible. So you are saying that fructose is to normal people like lactose is to people with lactose intolerance, but diabetics somehow are immune to the deleterious health effects of fructose? I am sorry, but if I understood correctly, your point is ridiculous unless you post any evidence of it.


  W
  This states flat out what I have been saying: high-fructose corn syrup, which is fructose/glucose seems to wosen more blood lipd profile than fructose alone. So what have this proven besides that I am right?

you are understanding my analogy correctly and you actually proved my point in your post yet still didn't get it, odd. Lactose is harmful to those with lactose intolerance, however, those with ample lactase have absolutely no problem with it. Thus if you changed the type 2 diabetics in your group with lactose intolerant people and had the healhty controls what you would see is that those with LI would have negative effects with lactose while the healthy people would not, similar to the type 2 diabetics benefiting from fructose and the healthy not. My point was to prove that the population matters, you are concluding that fructose via helping T2diabetics is healthy for normal people even though your study didnt prove this, would be like me claiming lactose is unhealhty for normal people based on the results from the lactose intolerant group. This analogy is actually perfect and is what you are claiming .

[Marty Champions]

oh you will gain weight, you see fructose is only utilized by the liver via the glut5 receptor, unlike glucose which is utilized by the liver/muscle via glut 4. Once liver glycogen is full excess fructose is shunted towards lipogenesis/fat storage.

fructose would be good in the morning as liver glycogen is depleted or when on low carb diets to keep the body in a fed state, sparring muscle glycogen.

your body can convert all types of sugars into whatever it needs no point in seeking a specific "brand" of carb

[Necrosis]

your body can convert all types of sugars into whatever it needs no point in seeking a specific "brand" of carb

no this conversion would only occur if glycogen was depleted or if gluconeogenesis was occuring. Fructose cannot supply muscles with glycogen, it requires a different receptor. I understand what you are saying but its not that simple.

[PJim]

 you are exaggerating a bit. some women really do like more effeminate looking guys, in addition to liking masculin looking guys. pretty boys get tons of ass as long as they have a personality. when you look like me, like a "pretty boy pussy" (lmao), its much more straight guys who have the negative attitude towards it.  females arent as concerned with men appearing "hard" as much as you might think. they do, just not to the extent which guys do. you wont find the average bloke hanging out with pretty boys cuz he thinks their fa g g ish, but most women actually really like pretty boys. like jared leto, his nose is really ugly to me and you... to most women.. eh.. not that bad. just not optimal. and hes still good looking. so he can easily pull 7's and 8's with a good p[ersonality even if he was dirt poor and nobody knew him.  

 my nose is on the border line. its just very slightly upturned, and theres no upwards curvature to the brim of it, unlike leto's. the ski slope nose is the worst. lol.

The last word I would use for you is pretty.

[suckmymuscle]

LOL epic strawman where did i claim that monosaccharides are poisons? i didn't realize monosaccharides=fructose.

  Maybe I should have used the singular instead of the plural here, but the bottom line is that you said fructose is a poison and fructose is a monosaccharide.

Fruit is fine, carbs are fine, glucose is fine, eating a diet high in fructose is not, its not black and white and this epic strawman and putting words in my mouth is childish at best and dishonest when you know the difference.

  So I repeat my question: from where should we get our energy substrate then? Since carbs are fine by you, then I imagine you are recommending one to eat grains, since fruits and grains are the only two sources of carbs available. I hope this isn't a "straw man". So grains instead of fruit. Too bad grains contains epic amounts of allergens and over half of all people have some allergy to some kind of grain. Grains also contains enormous amounts of inorganic acids such as phosphoric and phytic acids not to mention oxalates which are powerful anti-nutrients and cause acidosis in the body. You theory leaves us with little options. So should we live on ketones, then? That is pretty harsh for the brain.

gluconeogenesis and glycolysis are constantly in action, they do not put enormous stress on the liver

  Oh yes, it does. You act like there are no differences in degree. There are. Fructose does create uric acid and those put strain on the liver. But protein creates 10 X more uric acid and also creates ammonia which is a known poison. So should get get our glucose from gluconeogenesis instead of getting it directly from food?

Uric acid is a by-product of purine metabolism so you clearly don't have a solid understanding of gluconeogenesis as it is an endergonic action.

 So what? What has this got to do with anything?

Uric acid is not the by-product of gluconeogenesis (it is much more prominent in protein metabolism) and in fact high sugar diets increase uric acid.

  Ugh, where have I stated that uric acid is a by product of gluconeogenesis? I said that uric acid is a by product of protein consumption. If you consume too much protein, as you must if you are going to get your glucose from gluconeogensis, then you will get lots of uric acid as a result. Funny that you accuse me of coming up with strawmans when you do it yourself.

GUESS what^ Cirillo P, Sato W, Reungjui S, et al. (December 2006). "Uric acid, the metabolic syndrome, and renal disease". J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 17 (12 Suppl 3): S165–8.

this paper already presented by me which you clearly didnt look at shows that fructose induces high levels of uric acid and increases gout occurence and severity. So if you are concerned about gout, and uric acid and renal health pehaps you should follow your advice.

  Yep. Too bad that gout is a lot more common among protein eaters than among fruitarians.

Then you make my position seem as if i said carbohydrates are bad here."Should we cut carbs completely and live on ketones which are even more toxic than ammonia and far less efficient as an energy source than glucose? I would like an honest answer to these questions."

which is another strawman and something one would use when losing the argument, which is clear you are.

  I am sorry. I agree that was a strawman. It's just that you make it seem like all carbs are bad since in all studies you post glucose and fructose are combined to show worse lipid profiles. Since the worsened lipid profiles only happens when calories are increased(meaning total glucides), then it is impossible to know whether it is the fructose that is causing it.

Basically you are stating that i claim monosaccharides are bad because fructose is not healthy, then you make a more grandious claim that the only option is to avoid carbs all together.

  Fine. I can see how that could be perceived as straw man. So what do you suggest we use as our primary energy substrate? Grains? Lard? Proteinaceous foods?

Fructose is fine to consume in mild to moderate doses ive said this over and over, eating only fruit is not good

  And yet, I have posted several videos of people who have been eating nothing but fruits for years and they can run marathons and climb Mount Everest without Oxygen. They seem to be not only surviving but thriving in this diet. Funny how also lowland gorillas eat 90% of their calories from fruit and chimpanzees get 65% of their calories from fruit and there wasn't a single episode of a chimpanzee having a myocardial infarction in the 25 years that Jane Goodall lived amongst them. And yes, fruit has phytochemicals, but their blood-lipid improving properties would not be powerful enough to override the toxicity of so much fructose if it were that bad. You, conversely, post rat studies or studies on humans where total calories, fat, protein and glucose are not controlled for - which is the only way for the study to establish a cause-and-effect between fructose and worsened blood lipd profile.

  

It is also important to

 and claiming that fructose dramatically lowers blood glucose levels is false, flat out false

  I never claimed that. I said fructose lowers blood glucose levels in diabetics, and I posted a study proving this.

Im such a fucking boss though aren't i? come on admit it im sexy as all hell

  You come across as insecure and in need of reassurance with this statement. Lack of self-confidence is not sexy.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

 Maybe I should have used the singular instead of the plural here, but the bottom line is that you said fructose is a poison and fructose is a monosaccharide.

  So I repeat my question: from where should we get our energy substrate then? Since carbs are fine by you, then I imagine you are recommending one to eat grains, since fruits and grains are the only two sources of carbs available. I hope this isn't a "straw man". So grains instead of fruit. Too bad grains contains epic amounts of allergens and over half of all people have some allergy to some kind of grain. Grains also contains enormous amounts of inorganic acids such as phosphoric and phytic acids not to mention oxalates which are powerful anti-nutrients and cause acidosis in the body. You theory leaves us with little options. So should we live on ketones, then? That is pretty harsh for the brain.

  Oh yes, it does. You act like there are no differences in degree. There are. Fructose does create uric acid and those put strain on the liver. But protein creates 10 X more uric acid and also creates ammonia which is a known poison. So should get get our glucose from gluconeogenesis instead of getting it directly from food?

 So what? What has this got to do with anything?

  Ugh, where have I stated that uric acid is a by product of gluconeogenesis? I said that uric acid is a by product of protein consumption. If you consume too much protein, as you must if you are going to get your glucose from gluconeogensis, then you will get lots of uric acid as a result. Funny that you accuse me of coming up with strawmans when you do it yourself.


  Yep. Too bad that gout is a lot more common among protein eaters than among fruitarians.

  I am sorry. I agree that was a strawman. It's just that you make it seem like all carbs are bad since in all studies you post glucose and fructose are combined to show worse lipid profiles. Since the worsened lipid profiles only happens when calories are increased(meaning total glucides), then it is impossible to know whether it is the fructose that is causing it.

  Fine. I can see how that could be perceived as straw man. So what do you suggest we use as our primary energy substrate? Grains? Lard? Proteinaceous foods?

  And yet, I have posted several videos of people who have been eating nothing but fruits for years and they can run marathons and climb Mount Everest without Oxygen. They seem to be not only surviving but thriving in this diet. Funny how also lowland gorillas eat 90% of their calories from fruit and chimpanzees get 65% of their calories from fruit and there wasn't a single episode of a chimpanzee having a myocardial infarction in the 25 years that Jane Goodall lived amongst them. And yes, fruit has phytochemicals, but their blood-lipid improving properties would not be powerful enough to override the toxicity of so much fructose if it were that bad. You, conversely, post rat studies or studies on humans where total calories, fat, protein and glucose are not controlled for - which is the only way for the study to establish a cause-and-effect between fructose and worsened blood lipd profile.

  
  I never claimed that. I said fructose lowers blood glucose levels in diabetics, and I posted a study proving this.

  You come across as insecure and in need of reassurance with this statement. Lack of self-confidence is not sexy.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

fructose is a metabolic poison, its quite clear, adding it to drinks, consuming large quantities is not healthy, i can state that as fact. From fruit is a different story so i dont want to have to repeat this over and over.

vegetables are carbohydrates as well perhaps you left that out on purpose im not sure.

you never said one time that fructose lowers blood sugar in diabetics, im not going to go around finding your lies dude. Your opening post made no reference to diabetics, even the post with the study on diabetics you made no claim until i pointed it out.

posting videos of people that eat alot of fruit isnt evidence that anyone would ever accept, they probably dont smoke, exercise, engage in stress reduction techniques, sleep alot etc.. live a healthy lifestyle there is no way to say they are healthy because of fruit consumption, that is what science is for to tease apart the variables. I dont doubt the fruits in the diet have a huge role, im not against fruit at all, fructose is all im against. Eating moderate amounts of something that has one bad thing but 1 million good things is fine, its like going for a jog in the woods, the jog benefits you more then the polluted city air in the park.

we should get glucose from food, grains, veggies and fruit. Eliminate fructose enhanced beverages, fruit juices and the like.

no insecurity just me being an ass as usual, more fucking around then anything as this is getbig.