one day off the diet

[Alessandro Mainente]

during my periodization i find that taking a day off in a week from the diet my body can't adapt to it and is more easy maintain the bodyweigth...what do you think about it? do you do a day off from your diet wher you can eat what you want?

[Joshua Naterman]

You should never be eating the exact same calories all the time. Some days more, some days less. The overall caloric balance should be low, but you should never have more than 1 day in a row where you have calories that are too low. If you do, your basal metabolism WILL slow down and you WILL have a harder time losing fat.

As far as muscle gain goes, it shouldn't matter. I have heard that a protein fast once per month for 24 hours is a good idea, but I don't worry about that.

[John Sapinoso]

I rarely cheat, and when I do it's just barely off the paleo confines, ie: banana chips (contain a bit of refined sugr and fried in probably not the best of oils) avocado coconut icecream (contains a bit of dairy and some unrefined raw sugar) unrefined organic provincial black mountain rice (anti-nutrients)

Banana chips give me headaches, massive diarreah and energy swings when consumed in large amounts. They are delicious and for me a large amount is an egregiously irresponsible 6-8 cups in one sitting

Avocado ice cream I can handle just fine but there's probably some possibility of silent inflammation.

The rice I can also handle jsut fine, as it's lower glycemic index than most other variety of rice.

It can occasionally be worth cheating (socially, psychologically, monotony), but personally 99.9999999% of the time, I'd rather just throw another steak on the grill, because the truth is, my diet IS what I want to eat.

[Gavin Strelitz]

I don't eat any sugar at all during the week, but on the weekends I give myself a bit of treat. Maybe a piece of cake, maybe some cookies or ice-cream. As with Tsoonami, I really enjoy eating the paleo way.

[Joshua Naterman]

I can't handle fructose very well anymore for some reason. Probably that candy binge... I had a single piece of pumpkin pie, only 25g of sugar so 13 of fructose and man did that cause a crazy surge!

On the other hand, glucose doesn't bother me at all. I'll see if this continues, but I am keeping myself fructose free for at least the rest of the year. I have a feeling that I need this time to detox rather badly. I don't know if detoxifying off of fructose has any validity in the research world but I can tell you that I feel infinitely better now than I did a few weeks ago.

[Philip Chubb]

I cheated once at night with a piece or sorbet cake (no gluten). It turned into 2 weeks of cheating. I never cheat anymore. I only have one or two pieces of fruit that I have to "earn" through working out. As many sweet potatoes as I want though. They take so long to cook that I can't go crazy on them anyway.

[Falcon]

I can't handle fructose very well anymore for some reason. Probably that candy binge... I had a single piece of pumpkin pie, only 25g of sugar so 13 of fructose and man did that cause a crazy surge!

On the other hand, glucose doesn't bother me at all. I'll see if this continues, but I am keeping myself fructose free for at least the rest of the year. I have a feeling that I need this time to detox rather badly. I don't know if detoxifying off of fructose has any validity in the research world but I can tell you that I feel infinitely better now than I did a few weeks ago.

Whaaat? Rly?

I love bananas and apples, those are just my breakfast, and sometimes I put them around workouts. About 20g daily, 30g max. I've never thought that somebody can have bad reaction to fructose.

[Larry Roseman]

Successful diets often schedule in a "cheat meal" every week or a "cheat day" after a number of weeks.

The purpose is to provide some mental relief and forestall a more serious blow-up.

Usually works. There can be exceptions, I'd imagine.

Sometimes certain foods just can do it to do you, for hard-to explain reasons.

Emotional connection with Thanksgiving perhaps. When I taste turkey I just want more,

(which isn't a bad thing) along with the stuffing and cranberry sauce and of course pumpkin pie!

To me, fruit is a pretty good diet food, and food in general, considering the alternatives. For one it's tasty.

It has few calories per serving and is filling (lots of water and fiber). It's low GI with lots of micronutrients. Fructose content is

generally only 5g per fruit. Even during normal eating, it's rare to eat enough that it matters. And if you're eating at a deficit then even some fructose turned to fat, it would be burned for energy.

To me, chances are the glucose content is be more of a factor in causing a blow-up, as it spikes blood sugar where as fructose

doesn't.

[Joshua Naterman]

You should educate yourself on the proportions of fructose and glucose that get delivered to the liver, as well as their fate upon arrival.

Low levels of fructose, under 28g I believe, are perfectly fine as far as I am aware, with disease states rising in proportion to any increase beyond that. As you say, these low levels would almost certainly be fully metabolized into glycogen.

Even high levels of glucose over long periods of time do not contribute terribly significantly to metabolic syndrome, which is why there are tons of pudgy but actually rather healthy Japanese people, and traditional diet (lots of rice) Asians in general. Despite having something like 80% of their diet from rice and other glucose-based carbs, people on the traditional Japanese high-rice diet have an extraordinarily low occurrence of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hypertension and high blood pressure, and cardiac disease. It happens, sure, but not anywhere near the extent that is being seen now that Western-style food is permeating the country.

You are making the common mistake of assuming blood sugar levels are the primary factor in developing disease, which they are apparently not. This statement is based on the current body of data regarding the actions of excessive fructose vs excessive glucose over long periods of time in the body. Even though it seems counter-intuitive, it does appear that straight up glucose is not much of a problem.

Unfortunately, straight up glucose doesn't exist in American food outside of white potatoes.

For some reason, purple yams and various sweet potatoes satisfy my sweet urges without causing problems. I especially like the purple yams... they are delicious. They are all ridiculously low in fructose, yet are just sweet enough.

Edit: Having said all that, it is definitely true that some people just can't resist going carb crazy regardless of the source...

[Donar]

To me, fruit is a pretty good diet food, and food in general, considering the alternatives. For one it's tasty.

It has few calories per serving and is filling (lots of water and fiber). It's low GI with lots of micronutrients. Fructose content is

generally only 5g per fruit. Even during normal eating, it's rare to eat enough that it matters. And if you're eating at a deficit then even some fructose turned to fat, it would be burned for energy.

To me, chances are the glucose content is be more of a factor in causing a blow-up, as it spikes blood sugar where as fructose

doesn't.

Fructose content varies greatly from fruit to fruit. A large apple for example has about 15g of fructose, while bananas have much less.

Here's a great post from Chris Kresser (from his 9 steps to perfect health series):

http://chriskresser.com/9-steps-to-perf ... eat-toxins

He also links to Dr. Robert Lustig's popular talk about sugar on youtube.

I personally limit my fructose consumption to about 15-30g per day.

[Larry Roseman]

You should educate yourself on the proportions of fructose and glucose that get delivered to the liver, as well as their fate upon arrival.

Low levels of fructose, under 28g I believe, are perfectly fine as far as I am aware, with disease states rising in proportion to any increase beyond that. As you say, these low levels would almost certainly be fully metabolized into glycogen.

Even high levels of glucose over long periods of time do not contribute terribly significantly to metabolic syndrome, which is why there are tons of pudgy but actually rather healthy Japanese people, and traditional diet (lots of rice) Asians in general. Despite having something like 80% of their diet from rice and other glucose-based carbs, people on the traditional Japanese high-rice diet have an extraordinarily low occurrence of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hypertension and high blood pressure, and cardiac disease. It happens, sure, but not anywhere near the extent that is being seen now that Western-style food is permeating the country.

You are making the common mistake of assuming blood sugar levels are the primary factor in developing disease, which they are apparently not. This statement is based on the current body of data regarding the actions of excessive fructose vs excessive glucose over long periods of time in the body. Even though it seems counter-intuitive, it does appear that straight up glucose is not much of a problem.

Unfortunately, straight up glucose doesn't exist in American food outside of white potatoes.

For some reason, purple yams and various sweet potatoes satisfy my sweet urges without causing problems. I especially like the purple yams... they are delicious. They are all ridiculously low in fructose, yet are just sweet enough.

Edit: Having said all that, it is definitely true that some people just can't resist going carb crazy regardless of the source...

Dude, I'm not talking about sickness, disease or metabolic syndrome. Just a momentary craving that led to a binging. Fructose is less likely to lead to that because it doesn't hit the blood immediately, spiking blood sugar and insulin, getting the crash, and the hunger.

Also you need to take fructose consumption in context. If it's in an athletic person, especially on a diet eating below maintnance, it matters little what amount they eat. They will burn it off after its converted.

Typically it will be converted to liver glycogen and end up converted to glucose when called for. Occasionally, in the rare situations liver glycogen is full in an athletic or dieting person it's converted to fat, though not at 1:1 gram obviously.

My main point is that fruit should be the last thing to worry about. If you want to eliminate sucrose and HFCS, that is another story ...but it will really be dificult to overconsume fruit. There is too much goodness in fruit to prioritize its removal from a diet, IMO.

If you are talking about the general public, eating excess calories and way too much sugar in general it's another story.

[Joshua Naterman]

Yea, small quantities aren't an issue.

Even below maintenance levels, if fructose is consumed when liver glycogen is basically topped off it will still be processed through the same pathways as alcohol.

To be fair, fruits were never available year round until modern shipping methods made it available year round. As long as you're glycogen depleted it's all right, but fructose is not a dietary necessity and the antioxidants and enzymes in fruit can also be consumed through other sources. I'm not trying to sound like a fructose fearmonger, just pointing out what is going on with it.

Even in athletic individuals, high levels of fructose can be damaging. You can not burn off crosslinked liver proteins, and because athletes typically have a large caloric intake as it is there is a strong likelihood that there will still be more intra-liver fat stores forming than are being burned, which will lead to some serious problems over time.

Why do you think there are so many athletic individuals with coronary blockages? There's no hard proof, but many think as you do and the evidence IS piling up that there is no protection against high enough consumption. No one is quite sure what "high enough" is, and it would certainly be somewhat sensitive to the time context of consumption relative to other glycogenic nutrients and liver glycogen depletion status.

There is no "typically" with fructose. If liver glycogen is full 0% of fructose gets converted to glycogen, it all gets converted into fats and cholesterols. There is far more involved with the chemical pathways than just conversion to fat. That alone would not be much of a concern, it would just be a matter of caloric balance and no more. There is so much more going on that it is not fair or correct to say what you have said. That is plain wrong.

Liver glycogen fills rapidly, it is the first glycogen store to be filled up and it is the first priority of the body because it is where our brains get glucose from. MUSCLE glycogen is a completely different story, but you are clearly not completely up to speed with what is happening with carbohydrate consumption and the human system. Of course, liver glycogen is also the first to start emptying which is part of why it fills so quickly as well.

Someone in your position, who presents himself as an intelligent person with reasonable views, is easily able to say what you have said in a place where no one knows any better and be taken seriously. If you are going to express opinions about this stuff by making statements that sound like fact, please... make sure you are as up to speed as the considerable amount of information online and your friends in places like this can help you be. That is really, really important to me personally.

[Larry Roseman]

To me, fruit is a pretty good diet food, and food in general, considering the alternatives. For one it's tasty.

It has few calories per serving and is filling (lots of water and fiber). It's low GI with lots of micronutrients. Fructose content is

generally only 5g per fruit. Even during normal eating, it's rare to eat enough that it matters. And if you're eating at a deficit then even some fructose turned to fat, it would be burned for energy.

To me, chances are the glucose content is be more of a factor in causing a blow-up, as it spikes blood sugar where as fructose

doesn't.

Fructose content varies greatly from fruit to fruit. A large apple for example has about 15g of fructose, while bananas have much less.

Here's a great post from Chris Kresser (from his 9 steps to perfect health series):

http://chriskresser.com/9-steps-to-perf ... eat-toxins

He also links to Dr. Robert Lustig's popular talk about sugar on youtube.

I personally limit my fructose consumption to about 15-30g per day.

Every fruit is diferent of course. I just am referring to an average fruit and portion.

The topic was about a cheat meal or day mainly. If you are going to "cheat" it needs to be satisfying.

So I am not big on restricting that meal but it should not be total crap obviously.

I personally don't treat fructose as that diferent from glucose. Both get converted to fat if the corresponding glycogen store is

full. Both can be burned for energy one way or another.

As far as the other food "toxins" go, I personally trust my body to deal with it. The problem with using chemistry to

determine physical outcomes is that what happens in the test tube is not always what happens in the body in real life.

There are many processes that compensate. There are many that are not completely understood. I just find that

listening to by body and feeling how it reacts to foods ans substances is a better guide than relying on someone's theory. In the end we are all going to get sick eventually, no matter what. In the end we are all going to die no matter what.

How much you want to stress until then about it is up to you however.

[Joshua Naterman]

To me, fruit is a pretty good diet food, and food in general, considering the alternatives. For one it's tasty.

It has few calories per serving and is filling (lots of water and fiber). It's low GI with lots of micronutrients. Fructose content is

generally only 5g per fruit. Even during normal eating, it's rare to eat enough that it matters. And if you're eating at a deficit then even some fructose turned to fat, it would be burned for energy.

To me, chances are the glucose content is be more of a factor in causing a blow-up, as it spikes blood sugar where as fructose

doesn't.

Fructose content varies greatly from fruit to fruit. A large apple for example has about 15g of fructose, while bananas have much less.

Here's a great post from Chris Kresser (from his 9 steps to perfect health series):

http://chriskresser.com/9-steps-to-perf ... eat-toxins

He also links to Dr. Robert Lustig's popular talk about sugar on youtube.

I personally limit my fructose consumption to about 15-30g per day.

Every fruit is diferent of course. I just am referring to an average fruit and portion.

The topic was about a cheat meal or day mainly. If you are going to "cheat" it needs to be satisfying.

So I am not big on restricting that meal but it should not be total crap obviously.

I personally don't treat fructose as that diferent from glucose. Both get converted to fat if the corresponding glycogen store is

full. Both can be burned for energy one way or another.

As far as the other food "toxins" go, I personally trust my body to deal with it. The problem with using chemistry to

determine physical outcomes is that what happens in the test tube is not always what happens in the body in real life.

There are many processes that compensate. There are many that are not completely understood. I just find that

listening to by body and feeling how it reacts to foods ans substances is a better guide than relying on someone's theory. In the end we are all going to get sick eventually, no matter what. In the end we are all going to die no matter what.

How much you want to stress until then about it is up to you however.

There is actually a certain amount of wisdom in this. It is true that some subgroups of people appear to have a different way of metabolizing fructose than others, and it appears to be a genetic attribute and not a response to the environment.

We certainly don't completely understand very much about our bodies... but there is an awful lot of evidence, both biochemical and observational, that points to a lack of such compensation in our bodies. We are simply built incredibly tough and can function with a huge amount of degradation before finally beginning to exhibit noticeable symptoms.

[Larry Roseman]

Yea, small quantities aren't an issue.

Even below maintenance levels, if fructose is consumed when liver glycogen is basically topped off it will still be processed through the same pathways as alcohol.

To be fair, fruits were never available year round until modern shipping methods made it available year round. As long as you're glycogen depleted it's all right, but fructose is not a dietary necessity and the antioxidants and enzymes in fruit can also be consumed through other sources. I'm not trying to sound like a fructose fearmonger, just pointing out what is going on with it.

Even in athletic individuals, high levels of fructose can be damaging. You can not burn off crosslinked liver proteins, and because athletes typically have a large caloric intake as it is there is a strong likelihood that there will still be more intra-liver fat stores forming than are being burned, which will lead to some serious problems over time.

Why do you think there are so many athletic individuals with coronary blockages? There's no hard proof, but many think as you do and the evidence IS piling up that there is no protection against high enough consumption. No one is quite sure what "high enough" is, and it would certainly be somewhat sensitive to the time context of consumption relative to other glycogenic nutrients and liver glycogen depletion status.

There is no "typically" with fructose. If liver glycogen is full 0% of fructose gets converted to glycogen, it all gets converted into fats and cholesterols. There is far more involved with the chemical pathways than just conversion to fat. That alone would not be much of a concern, it would just be a matter of caloric balance and no more. There is so much more going on that it is not fair or correct to say what you have said. That is plain wrong.

Liver glycogen fills rapidly, it is the first glycogen store to be filled up and it is the first priority of the body because it is where our brains get glucose from. MUSCLE glycogen is a completely different story, but you are clearly not completely up to speed with what is happening with carbohydrate consumption and the human system. Of course, liver glycogen is also the first to start emptying which is part of why it fills so quickly as well.

Someone in your position, who presents himself as an intelligent person with reasonable views, is easily able to say what you have said in a place where no one knows any better and be taken seriously. If you are going to express opinions about this stuff by making statements that sound like fact, please... make sure you are as up to speed as the considerable amount of information online and your friends in places like this can help you be. That is really, really important to me personally.

Hey, I am happy if you can convince me of your position, because then I will have learned something and become better off in the process. But I think you're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm talking about what Phillip said, in regards to a little fructose leading to a diet meltdown. My point is that it's highly unlikely. If you want to extrapolate beyond that context, by all means, but please don't imply that I'm saying anything more that it's highly unlikley that a little fructose is going to wreck a diet.I also was explict by stating it with the qualifer "TO ME" and "IMO".

As far as the liver chemistry of it goes, I conceed that I am not an expert, and don't even like chemistry. But I do know conversion into fat requires that liver glycogen be full. Not not depleted but full. Exercise depletes liver glycogen, in varying amounts. Living depletes. Sleeping depletes it. So to me, having a fully stocked liver is unlikely at mealtime. Afterwards, perhaps yes.

I'm happy to research the subject further, and appreciate any pointers in a particular direction. There is always something new to learn, and everyone should keep an open mind to varying viewpoints, as you stated in another thread.

Cheers!

[Joshua Naterman]

Yea, I think the diet meltdown happens more to people on lower carb diets. I'm not sure what that's about but it has happened plenty of times to me as well... It is amazing how easily one thing leads to another for me.

The video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" is probably the best introduction to this whole thing.

You're right, liver glycogen is rarely full at mealtime. That's why the hilarious truth (well, funny as hell to me at any rate!) is that you are actually better off having your sweets before the meal instead of after! So, dessert first (in reasonable portions) is actually quite a bit healthier than saving it for the end of the meal. Considering how everything is set up here, with sweet foods to begin with and then sweets afterwards when we are SURE to have full livers makes that rather ironic.

[Larry Roseman]

Yea, I think the diet meltdown happens more to people on lower carb diets. I'm not sure what that's about but it has happened plenty of times to me as well... It is amazing how easily one thing leads to another for me.

The video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" is probably the best introduction to this whole thing.

You're right, liver glycogen is rarely full at mealtime. That's why the hilarious truth (well, funny as hell to me at any rate!) is that you are actually better off having your sweets before the meal instead of after! So, dessert first (in reasonable portions) is actually quite a bit healthier than saving it for the end of the meal. Considering how everything is set up here, with sweet foods to begin with and then sweets afterwards when we are SURE to have full livers makes that rather ironic.

Yeah that occured to me also that sweets would be better before. It guess it still takes some time for the main meal to be fully digested, so desert probably catches up to some extent. But still, I'd vote for desert first, and I'm sure the kids would love it!

I've also read elsewhere that fructose can replenish muscle glycogen to some degree, perhaps half as efficently as glucose does.

It has to go through the liver first, get converted to glycogen and then to glucose, but some of it is still released even though the need is caused by the muscles.

Anyway, I'll take a look see at that video and report back as to "the education of futureisnow"!

Edit: Ah, see it was you who had the pumpkin pie problem. Phillip was some other type of cake. Same difference though actually meant to be replying to Phillip initially which may have led to some confusion.

[Joshua Naterman]

Fructose only contributes 10% to muscle glycogen replenishment according to every study I could find that used a fructose-glucose mix. They suggest that while yes, it does contribute a small amount, it is not enough to worry about and to me it's not worth messing with. 10% more glycogen replenishment in a given period of time just doesn't matter enough for me to include fructose in my PWO drink.

I've had table sugar before and noticed a definite difference... it seemed to take a lot longer to recover from the workout. Just doesn't soak in like straight glucose does, which makes sense since sucrose breakdown and absorption is 30-odd% slower than straight glucose absorption according to GI ratings. Perhaps HFCS would be a different experience since it is free glucose and free fructose, I don't know. Either way the 10% enhancement isn't worth it to me. That only makes a difference of a few hours for replenishing 100% depleted muscle stores, since that takes about 48 hours. I never even get close to that, and if I did those few hours aren't important enough for me to take the risk of consuming way too much fructose. I suppose you could have a 10-20% fructose/80-90% glucose solution and that ought to be sufficient, but I still don't feel comfortable taking that risk. That is an overly cautious attitude, I admit, but I lose nothing by using straight glucose lol! Just doesn't matter for my performance characteristics. Maybe if I was a very long distance runner I would feel differently.

[Larry Roseman]

Fructose only contributes 10% to muscle glycogen replenishment according to every study I could find that used a fructose-glucose mix. They suggest that while yes, it does contribute a small amount, it is not enough to worry about and to me it's not worth messing with. 10% more glycogen replenishment in a given period of time just doesn't matter enough for me to include fructose in my PWO drink.

I've had table sugar before and noticed a definite difference... it seemed to take a lot longer to recover from the workout. Just doesn't soak in like straight glucose does, which makes sense since sucrose breakdown and absorption is 30-odd% slower than straight glucose absorption according to GI ratings. Perhaps HFCS would be a different experience since it is free glucose and free fructose, I don't know. Either way the 10% enhancement isn't worth it to me. That only makes a difference of a few hours for replenishing 100% depleted muscle stores, since that takes about 48 hours. I never even get close to that, and if I did those few hours aren't important enough for me to take the risk of consuming way too much fructose. I suppose you could have a 10-20% fructose/80-90% glucose solution and that ought to be sufficient, but I still don't feel comfortable taking that risk. That is an overly cautious attitude, I admit, but I lose nothing by using straight glucose lol! Just doesn't matter for my performance characteristics. Maybe if I was a very long distance runner I would feel differently.

I believe it's a pretty small transfer in general. The main situation it might occur is post exercise. At this time only, muscle glycogen appears to be replenished preferentially. So at this time, fructose immediatelly eaten and stored as liver glycogen is more likely to be released into the bloodstream. Practically speaking I don't think it matters either.

My main source of fructose is table sugar and suggary food preps and drinks, not fruit. Which kind of goes back to may main point, which is that for most people, fruit is probably the last thing to worry about. I eat a lot but still only 3 or 4 servings a day. If someone eats 10 servings it may be a problem, but usually 1-3 are more common. The goodness of fruit I find to be

self evident. And you will have to tear that ripe bananna from my cold dead hands

However, it is on my mind to do like a 5-7 pound cut in Jan and maintain a lower bf% next year, so I will certainly get up to speed on the fructose impact. It's certainly a risk in certain situations, and I do like to minimize risks (and maximize opportunities).

Cheers!

[Joshua Naterman]

Oh yea, there aren't very many people who are consuming enough fruit to become a problem, and honestly if they are then the fruit is probably the bulk of their diet, In that situation the amount of fructose that actually becomes "problematic" would probably be pretty low because fruit is not high calorie at all for the most part.

Sir, I would never steal a ripe banana from the Future! I too love bananas, and I could not in good conscience deprive someone of something they love. I just don't eat them right now

My parents just went to some awesome Chinese restaurant and invited me out, but I told them I'll go in early January.

I want to be super strict for the rest of the year, it's only like 9-10 weeks but that's long enough to see what happens with my dietary manipulations! I mean seriously, if I get down to 7-8% BF without putting in a huge amount of effort then I will know I have found something super effective (for me, at least) and I'll be able to get there whenever I want, so at that point less perfect weeks or months won't matter very much.

[Larry Roseman]

Oh yea, there aren't very many people who are consuming enough fruit to become a problem, and honestly if they are then the fruit is probably the bulk of their diet, In that situation the amount of fructose that actually becomes "problematic" would probably be pretty low because fruit is not high calorie at all for the most part.

Sir, I would never steal a ripe banana from the Future! I too love bananas, and I could not in good conscience deprive someone of something they love. I just don't eat them right now

My parents just went to some awesome Chinese restaurant and invited me out, but I told them I'll go in early January.

I want to be super strict for the rest of the year, it's only like 9-10 weeks but that's long enough to see what happens with my dietary manipulations! I mean seriously, if I get down to 7-8% BF without putting in a huge amount of effort then I will know I have found something super effective (for me, at least) and I'll be able to get there whenever I want, so at that point less perfect weeks or months won't matter very much.

Hear you on the diet situation. It's times hard socially because parents and spouses don't understand. They see us in relatively good shape already, and think it's crazy to worry about it. But they don't understand the potential performance benefit.

And health benefits up to a certain point. And it's easy to go along with them at times, but at other times it's neccessary to chart your own course. So I wish you well in that

Glad my fruit is safe! I'm also glad that the Sugar, the bitter truth video was not anti-fruit either.

I did watch the video and found it interesting.

I can now agree that fructose is the most potentially dangerous sugar,

whereas I wouldn't have before! You may want to stop here, because it's a mixed bag.

He did a good job explaining how fat was fingered as the bad guy, whereas sugar, the fructose in sugar in particular, is as probematic. He tends to use global statistics and apply them to individuals. Individuals are not averages however.

The biological aspect was pretty deep, but at the same time somewhat 2 dimensional.

He didn't get into how metabolism changes under different conditions such

as under calorie deficit or excess, body fat%, exercise, etc. He didn't explain that fructose is only converted to fat when liver glycogen is full, or that excess glucose can also be converted to fat when muscle glycogen is full.

He said that liver glycogen was bottomless, wheras it isn't.

He pointed out that fructose doesn't impact saiety, however fructose is almost always consumed with glucose,

so it's not so simple. He did give credit to exercise for "detoxifying" fructose, so it isn't converted

to fat. I don't think he proved that fat isn't as bad as fructose - it is fat already.

Granted there are some metabolites involved in the conversion that may be harmful.

I don't feel it's as black and white as he described it but will look into that further.

I found the uric acid connection particuarly interesting, as I'm aware of negative impacts of that on many fronts.

Edit: usually it's converted to waste/sweat through the urea cycle, not to say immediately or 100%

He did point out that fruit is ok because it has fibre and not a lot of calories.

He didn't mention protein, except indirectlly in context of paleo which he lauded for the fibre content

(100-300g / day). As an aside I wonder how many paleo eaters have 100-300g of fibre a day!

At the start of the video he said he would prove that calories in = calories out isn't

the key to weight loss. He didn't prove that at all. At best he proved that some

foods are less filling. Bottom line, don't drink fruit juice or soda.

Honestly, the man is a pediatrican. What is he doing talking about sugar? Ok

childhood obesity. But he isn't a scientist, an exercise phsyiologist or a nutritionist.

He did an entertaining presentation with some fun facts. I don't take it very seriously.

Sorry. 8)

[Joshua Naterman]

The biological aspect was pretty deep, but at the same time somewhat 2 dimensional.

He didn't get into how metabolism changes under different conditions such

as under calorie deficit or excess, body fat%, exercise, etc. He didn't explain that fructose is only converted to fat when liver glycogen is full, or that excess glucose can also be converted to fat when muscle glycogen is full.

He said that liver glycogen was bottomless, wheras it isn't.

I'm pretty sure he explains that fructose is only converted to fat once liver glycogen is full, but that is not the focus.

Honestly, I would think that we want our pediatricians to be the MOST informed about this sort of thing... look at the kids around us. They are all fat. Seriously, almost every kid I see is at least somewhat over-fat. It's nuts! Even 10 years ago we didn't have anywhere near as many fat kids as I see now! If anything I think that his being a pediatrician and recognizing the importance of basic biochemistry + physiology + nutrition adds to his credibility. He's not exactly riding the forefront of new research, he is simply putting well established information out to the masses.

Liver glycogen is "bottomless" in the sense that it is always being replenished, and that it actually takes a pretty serious sustained effort to get it close to empty. You're right though, that part is somewhat skewed.

Calorie deficits are dealt with in a sideways manner. He does touch on the fact that as long as the fat in the liver isn't accumulated TOO quickly it is moved to the visceral cavity to surround other organs, where it does exhibit inflammatory effects but is also burned for energy. So, if you are on a calorie deficit but still consume enough fructose in a certain period of time to send some down that alternate pathway, you could potentially still cause significant damage to your liver. This would be most likely if someone had the bulk of their calories at one meal. You can probably see how that could be a problem.

He DOES mention, briefly, that glucose can also be converted to liver fat but it happens through a different chemical pathway and does not appear to be linked to non-alcohol related cirrhosis which is a key difference. Because only ~20% of ingested glucose makes it to the liver due to systemic circulation, it just doesn't get the chance to exhibit a significant intra-organ lipogenic effect. Unless, of course, you consume something crazy like 300g of carbs at one sitting. Then you're in big trouble lol!

Because that is so atypical, at least I hope it is... that's an awful lot of food..., I think that got glossed over. It is of course a potential concern, but not to anywhere near the extent that fructose is.

Individuals aren't averages, but with fairly few exceptions our sugar metabolisms are nearly identical. This is probably because we all run off of sugar (due to gluconeogenesis or starch digestion) no matter where in the world we come from, with very few exceptions.

I'm pretty sure that he did not get into how higher BF% actually inhibit BF utilization, particularly visceral fat. But, to be fair to him, it was purely a presentation on fructose and not on obesity as a whole. That would be a monster seminar hahahaha!

The fat isn't actually the problem, in the sense that the body fat is a byproduct of fructose metabolism and not actually the worst of the effects. The liver fat stores is a big deal, but this is because of location and not because it is fat. The cholesterol formation and the non-fat-related effects of fructose are the biggest part of what he was trying to get across, because as bad as obesity is the way that fructose contributes ALSO increases the risk of chronic diseases due to liver damage and preferential visceral fat formation.

Dietary fat is typically distributed fairly evenly, or in some preferentially, throughout the body but most of it ends up being subcutaneous. Same goes for fat from glucose over-indulgence. Subcutaneous fat is actually not strongly correlated with negative health risk factors, interestingly enough. Nowhere near as strongly as visceral fat, which makes sense since the visceral fat will secrete inflammatory substances that directly contact the internal organs whereas the subcutaneous fat will secrete them around the muscles, and I have no idea if there is a difference in secretion or whether there is metabolic reduction through the blood stream or what, but for some reason it is much less of a problem.

LOL! Well, you make a great point about paleo... TRUE paleo is heavily plant based and has a TON of fiber! My diet currently has 24g of fiber JUST from the spinach. More from the broccoli and now that I have it, my buckwheat. Buckwheat has a ridiculous amount of fiber @ 5-6g per 34g carb serving. With 10 servings a day on a heavy workout day that would be quite a bit! I'm not too sure about 100-300g per day of fiber, but for sure there's no way that a really true paleo diet would have less than 40-60g. Not if you were hitting your calorie needs, even with a reasonable amount of meat.

[Larry Roseman]

Thanks for your reply S-man!

Yes, It is good that has a doctor he has an interest in the bigger picture, and hoping to break a vicious cycle.

Lots of parents need education about this, because they are feeding their babies and children crap.

I'm not sure I agree with his 20% figure for metabolism of glucose. From what I can tell, all blood will

pass through the liver. If not initially, then eventually. So if glucose is eaten (or starch broken down into it)

and not taken up elsewhere, I am pretty sure that it is liver bound. What happens there is a lot more complicated,

and makes me regret that I don't have a good chemistry or biochem background.

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/glycolysis.html , in particular The Glucose-Fatty Acid Cycle

section.

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/n ... olism.html, as pertains to fructose and ethanol.

It's interesting though in the reference above that glucose is converted to fructose in the liver as an inital step.

Also that fructose can be taken up by the muscles as well (Glut-2 does transport fructose, just not exclusively like Glut-5).

Not sure what impact this has on the bigger picture, but just a curiousity!

I do hear you on lver damage and fat depsotion pattern from fructose. If there aren't compensating factors or repair mechanisms it could be a problem. Will look into that more for sure. High uric acid levels appear to be related to fructose

consumption, and to high BP and associated with heart disease. My Dad had Gout - not a lot of fun.

Fiber is our friend 40-60g is way better than average, and I should shoot for it really. It is so nice to sit down on our throne and get off in a minute or less, as opposed to, Ouch! well you know what I am referring to

Edit: This is a good read too (see follup as well at bottom) http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/2 ... -alarmism/

[Joshua Naterman]

I believe the TYPE of fructose is what is important. There is more than 1 form and the form dictates the pathways it is metabolized through.

The 20% figure is probably from "normal" consumption and takes into account systemic circulation, as you said. Not all the blood passes through the liver, I don't think, but even if it did all of the tissues in our bodies use glucose. Muscle, both skeletal and smooth, red blood cells (purely anaerobic), organs, etc. So, under normal circumstances most of the sugar is metabolized elsewhere.

Then, if you get an insulin response, since all tissues can take up and metabolize glucose I think the glucose will be metabolized and deposited into adipose tissue on site to a fair extent, which further protects the liver from isolated damage. That being said, with enough going in you could certainly get similar fatty acid deposits in the liver itself, but you won't have the same protein damage and thus not the same level of liver impairment.

[Larry Roseman]

I believe the TYPE of fructose is what is important. There is more than 1 form and the form dictates the pathways it is metabolized through.

The 20% figure is probably from "normal" consumption and takes into account systemic circulation, as you said. Not all the blood passes through the liver, I don't think, but even if it did all of the tissues in our bodies use glucose. Muscle, both skeletal and smooth, red blood cells (purely anaerobic), organs, etc. So, under normal circumstances most of the sugar is metabolized elsewhere.

Then, if you get an insulin response, since all tissues can take up and metabolize glucose I think the glucose will be metabolized and deposited into adipose tissue on site to a fair extent, which further protects the liver from isolated damage. That being said, with enough going in you could certainly get similar fatty acid deposits in the liver itself, but you won't have the same protein damage and thus not the same level of liver impairment.

Makes sense!

That "liver damage" issue is the key to whether fructose (straight or in sucrose/HFSC) is worse than glucose.

Although lets face it, we don't have a choice to drink glucose commerically. It's not used much because it isn't very sweet.

But as you do, it's possible to make your own sports drink, etc.

Anyway back to "liver damage" that is what needs to be proven. The video does highlight a few potential causes.

There have been some studies - several use unrealistic amounts. I'd have to consolidate what I read.

It is certainly theoretically possible for damage to occur, but how it occurs in real life is the question.

Anyway, Alan Aragon recommends 50g intake as a recommended maximum for active males.

More conservative sources say 15-30g. Like you say, there is no harm in avoiding it as much as possible,

(unless you are an endurance athlete as you mention).

It's something I'm going to track, as I haven't really tracked my sugar intake formally.

But I am generally avoiding sweets and soft drinks now. Fruit juice I drink a glass a day perhaps (10-15g fructose?).

By the way, I had a protein bar today just to quell some hunger. Detour (http://www.detourbar.com). Familar with it? I"m impressed.

Generally these not much different than candy bars however a small size has 15g protein (mostly from whey, some casien and just a little soy). About 7g fat (probably it was peanut) and 17g carb - 6 of which sugar. 190 cals. Pretty good taste!